(Prolifer)ations 10-29-07
My list of great pro-life blogs has grown to the point I can’t cover all of them at once in
(Prolifer)ations. The other day I covered a block (A-C) and today will cover another, and that’s how I’ll have to do this from now on.
Jivin Jehoshaphat links to a column in London’s Telegraph that imagined a future abortion museum….
It could buy up a 20th-century hospital building as its space, and take visitors round, showing them how, in one ward, staff were trying to save the lives of premature babies while, in the next, they were killing them….
It could display the various instruments that were used to remove and kill the foetus, rather as the manacles and collars of slaves can be seen today….
Just as, today, we are invited to glare at the Georgian portraits of fat, bewigged English sugar planters or pro-slavery politicians, there could be a rogues’ gallery of pro-abortionists….
Along these lines I had an abstract thought yesterday that while pro-lifers often accuse pro-aborts of being on the wrong side of history, you never hear pro-aborts accusing pro-lifers of same. Do they realize that moral argument falls flat for them?
Dawn Eden reported on 19-year-old Kathryn McCoy (pictured left), who secretly delivered and drowned her baby girl in a dorm toilet at Bellarmine University in Louisville, after keeping her pregnancy a secret.
Dawn made the point that while this liberal Catholic university specializes in (failed) pro-abortion teaching, it apparently does not educate about the other choice, “access to information about local agencies that would have given her support had she chosen life,” wrote Dawn or about KY’s baby safe haven law.
Forest Nymph linked to a column promoting abortion in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer with this interesting paragraph:
“Anybody can look at data and pick and choose whatever they want,” Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League, told me. “The real fact is that abortion is ending life in the womb and should never be legal.” I asked him if he accepted the finding that abortion was more dangerous where it was illegal. No, he said. “When something is illegal, people are more careful.” So legal abortion is more unsafe? According to Sedlak, it is indeed.
Generations for Life has several good posts, two on Saturday’s protest at Planned Parenthood Aurora here and here (and which I’ll spotlight more tomorrow), and one on last Tuesday’s student Pro-Life Day of Solidarity, sponsored by Stand True.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Your Help Needed to Defeat SAFE HAVEN Laws!
——————————————————————————–
OPPOSE HB 104
E-MAIL, CALL, AND FAX the New Hampshire Senate Committee on Public Institutions, Health & Human Services TODAY and urge them to VOTE NO to HB 104, the latest attempt to bring legalized baby dumping to New Hampshire.
This bill will be heard on Tuesday, March 18th. HB-104 has already been passed in the House of Representatives.
Baby Dump legislation is a feel-good band-aid for legislators who want to address the problem of newborn abandonment. However, legalizing anonymous baby dumping isn’t the answer. These laws encourage irresponsibility and threaten the lives of infants and their mothers who may be encouraged to give birth without medical attention. They also strip the abandoned infants of their identities and provide no recourse for fathers or other
family members who may not be aware of the infant’s existence. There is no evidence that these laws are working in any of the states where they have been implemented. Legalizing an irresponsible, potentially dangerous, and unethical act is not the answer! The prestigious Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute issued a report on March 10th, “Unintended Consequences: New Study Raises Serious Concerns About Legalized Infant
Abandonment,” This report casts serious doubts upon the so-called “safe haven” laws that have swept across the country. The study suggests that these laws not only do not solve the problem of unsafe infant abandonment, but they may actually encourage women to conceal pregnancies and then abandon infants who otherwise would have been placed for adoption through established legal procedures or being raised by relatives
Read the full text at
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi…03/HB0104.html
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE SENATE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
Sen. Andre’ Martel, Chairman
andre.martel@leg.state.nh.us
237 Riverdale Avenue
Manchester, NH 03103-7301
(H) (603)622-8411
Jill, OMG, look at this!
We have the safe haven law in Ohio. There was a little girl turned in 1 year ago. Thanks to a law that saved her life.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
WOOSTER, Ohio ? A healthy newborn girl was left at the local hospital, apparently abandoned by her mother under the state’s safe haven law, police said.
The full-term infant, only a couple of hours old, was dropped off by a woman Tuesday shortly after 8 a.m. at the registration desk of Wooster Community Hospital, said police Lt. John Quicci.
The baby had to have her umbilical cord clamped at the emergency room but was otherwise healthy, Quicci said.
A 2001 Ohio law allows birth parents to drop off children 72 hours old or younger at a safe haven, including a hospital, fire department or police station, without criminal charges as long as the child has not be abused or neglected.
There are similar laws across the nation, meant to reduce the cases of newborns being abandoned in trash bins and other places where they are at risk of dying.
Robin Troyer, Wayne County Children Services interim executive director, said a juvenile court will have to have hearings to determine custody for the child, who was taken to the hospital’s obstetrics unit.
(Story continues below)
I have to agree with Jim on the “People are more careful when they’re already breaking the law. I know of three former criminal abortionists, Jesse Ketchum, Milan Vuitch, and Benjamin Munson, who all had clean records before legalization — no dead women attributed to them. But after legalization, each went on to kill two women in his presumably safer legal practice. Ketchum managed to kill his two patients within four months of each other — and before Roe.
Heather,
Didn’t you say you sent me an email? I never got it…
I don’t have a position on Safe Haven laws…
Someone convince me of their side.
Jacque, this is how I feel. Infanticide is running rampant. Women, especially teens, are ashamed to be pregnant. They are hiding their pregnancies, and giving birth without medical supervision. There have been several cases of this in my own state. I am all for stiff punishments, but for some odd reason, this is a crime that is not taken all that seriously. I also blame abortion for devaluing the human life of the “fetus.” Here are a few names of baby killers who got away with murdering their newborns: Christy Freeman, Amy Grossberg, Melissa Drexler, Jessica Colemen, Audry Iacona, and the list goes on. If I’m not mistaken, I think that the killing of “baby boy Grossberg” kicked this law into effect. It gives babies an alternative to being tossed into a dumpster, stabbed, or beaten to death.
Jill, please correct me if I’m wrong. MK, Hmmm. I’ll see if I can find my e-mail.
I like the safe haven law. I don’t really see a down side.
rosie, right. I mean, it’s better than a young girl feeling like she has no other choice but to hide her baby by killing him/her. Sure, not every girl will take advantage of this, but it may decrease the death rate.
Melissa Drexler, 18, concealed her pregnancy from everyone.
After arriving with friends at the Aberdeen Township Banquet Hall in New Jersey, for the Lacey Township High School prom, Drexler went to the women’s restroom and gave birth to a son within about 20 – 30 minutes, with her friends right outside the stall.
She told her friend, “Go tell the boys I’ll be right out.”
Born alive, the infant was suffocated. Drexler cut the umbilical cord on the edge of a metal sanitary napkin box in the stall.
Drexler went to the dance floor.
Maintenance workers were called in to clean up the blood found a bag in the garbage with a dead baby inside. Blood tests revealed no trace of drugs or alcohol.
Prosecutors in Monmouth County initially charged Drexler with murder, but she pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter on October 29, 1998.
Statement read in court by Melissa Drexler as she pleaded guilty to aggravated manslaughter:
“I knew I was pregnant.
I concealed the pregnancy from everyone.
On the morning of the prom my water broke.
While I was in the car on the way to the prom, I began to have cramps. I went to the prom and I went into the bathroom and delivered the baby.
The baby was born alive. I knowingly took the baby out the toilet and wrapped a series of garbage bags around the baby. I then placed the baby in another garbage bag, knotted it closed and threw it in the trash can.
I was aware of what I was doing at the time when I placed the baby in the bag. And I was further aware that what I did would most certainly result in the death of the baby.”
New Jersey v. Melissa Drexler “The Prom Mom Case”
Crying and apologetic, Melissa Drexler was sentenced to 15 years in prison for killing her newborn son moments after delivering the baby in the bathroom at her senior prom.
Melissa admits she killed her newborn son and plead guilty to aggravated manslaughter in the death of the boy she delivered during her high school senior prom.
Update: Released from prison, 11/2001 at age 23 to go home and live with her parents. She was noted to be a model prisoner. Melissa Drexler took fashion courses while in prison and hopes to work in the industry, said her lawyer, Steven Secare.
Delaware v. Grossberg and Peterson
Grossberg Pleads Guilty to Manslaughter
Text of Amy Grossberg’s Plea Agreement
(April 22) Amy Grossberg, one of the two New Jersey teens accused of killing her
Amy Grossberg: Pled guilty to manslaughter in the death of her infant baby.
newborn in a Delaware motel and throwing him in a dumpster, pled guilty to reduced charges of manslaughter today. Grossberg, who was scheduled to go on trial May 5 for second-degree murder in the death of the infant, reportedly agreed to the plea after her attorneys learned in detail what her former high school sweetheart, Brian Peterson, would say against her at her trial next month. Last month Peterson also pleaded guilty to manslaughter and agreed to testify against Grossberg.
Grossberg reportedly entered the courtroom sobbing, clutching her parents and her lawyer. In court, she acknowledged tearfully that the she unintentionally caused the death of her baby when she gave birth quietly in a Delaware motel in November 1996. Grossberg described the moments that led to the infant’s death as events that “spun out of control.” As part of plea agreement and Delaware’s sentencing guidelines, Grossberg could be sentenced to two-and-half years in prison.
Grossberg’s plea bargain is the final chapter in an emotionally-charged case that
Brian Peterson: Grossberg’s former boyfriend who pled guilty to manslaughter and was expected to testify against her at her trial.
saw angry protesters nearly charge Grossberg and Peterson when they were first indicted for their baby’s murder in December 1996. The teen-agers first claimed the baby was stillborn, but an autopsy showed that he suffered various fatal head fractures. At first, it seemed like Grossberg and Peterson would remain united in their defense against the murder charges. But then they began to blame each other for the infant’s death. Grossberg acknowledged giving birth to the baby, but said that she did not participate in disposing the infant. She said that Peterson acted alone in throwing the child in the dumpster. However, Grossberg denied that she and Peterson had ever planned to kill their baby.
During last month’s plea agreement, Peterson admitted disposing of the baby. Peterson’s lawyers said that he and Grossberg panicked when she gave birth and experienced complications. Peterson claimed that he thought the infant was born dead and insisted that his girlfriend begged him to “Get rid of it!” Peterson’s lawyers said that he regretted not seeking medical help for the baby and not getting medical confirmation that he was stillborn.
Early in the case, prosecutors considered charging Grossberg and Peterson with first-degree murder and seeking the death penalty. But after Peterson’s plea bargain, prosecutors then decided to seek lesser charges of second-degree murder and murder by abuse or neglect against Grossberg. They believed that it would be easier to convict Grossberg on those charges because Peterson’s statements did not show that Grossberg planned to kill the baby. In Delaware, the maximum punishment for second-degree murder is 20 years in prison, while the penalty for murder by neglect or abuse ranges from 15 years to life imprisonment.
Brian Peterson has yet to be formally sentenced for his manslaughter plea. Amy Grossberg’s sentencing will take place on July 9. Although the maximum sentence for manslaughter in Delaware is 10 years in prison, it seems unlikely that Peterson will receive the maximum punishment.
April 13, 2007
“Panic?”
135 stab wounds is a pretty extreme “panic”
A young lady in Minnesota, Nicole Marie Beecroft, has been charged with first-degree murder, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.
Nicole, who is apparently overweight, had managed to hide her pregnancy from her parents, but she couldn’t hide the baby girl she gave birth to in the laundry room of her home.
The Tartan High School senior told police she was in a “panic state” after giving birth to the girl on the floor of the laundry room in her home around 3 a.m. Monday, according to the criminal complaint filed in Washington County District Court. She told police she had seen the baby’s finger move, and admitted stabbing the child, the complaint said.
An autopsy determined the infant had been born alive, but suffered numerous puncture wounds in the chest area and bled to death from 135 sharp-force injuries, the complaint said.
Hold your hand aloft and make a stabbing motion 135 times and see how long it takes you, even doing it rapid-fire. That’s some serious “panic” there, isn’t it? I’d think that a “panic” reaction would be to smother the baby and dispose of her body. Maybe even just wrap her up and shove her in the garbage. Stabbing her 135 times goes well beyond the grip of panic.
This young lady has some serious issues, and, like Jessica Coleman, she deserves much worse than she’ll probably wind up getting.
The really sad thing is Minnesota has a “safe harbor” law which would have allowed her to drop that baby off within 72 hours of birth with no legal consequences.
FOXNews.com – Minnesota Teen Allegedly Stabbed Newborn 135 Times
November 2, 2006
Update: Jessica Coleman
Wonder if the Sheriff’s Captain will get in trouble for this?
Remember Jessica Coleman? Jessica was 15 back in 1999 when she gave birth to a baby boy. Problem was, Jessica didn’t want a baby. And she didn’t want anyone to know she’d had a baby. So, she beat and stabbed her newborn son with scissors and gave his tiny body to her boyfriend, Thomas Truelson. He stuffed the body into a rock-filled duffle bag and tossed it into a flooded quarry.
Six months later, the baby’s body was found and for years no one knew who he was. He became known as “Baby Boy Hope.” And there it might have stayed, except that Jessica eventually confessed her crime to her current boyfriend, Matthew McKenzie, in May of 2005. Matt told a friend and couple of relatives and one of them went to the police.
Truelson could have gotten anything from five years’ probation to 11 years. He was eventually sentenced to two years, Jessica got three times that — six years. She could have gotten five years’ probation to 24 years. She has, of course, appealed her sentence.
Back in September, Oprah wanted to interview Jessica, but state prison officials said no. They don’t believe that prisoners should serve as celebrity champions on issues they’re serving time for.
Jessica’s attorney requested that her sentence be reconsidered, so Jessica was brought to a Lorain County Jail to await that hearing. The prosecutor objected, stating that Jessica’s appeal should be heard before the length of the sentence is reconsidered. The Judge agreed, and the hearing was postponed.
During the time that Jessica was in the county jail, however, Lorain County Sheriff’s Captain James Drozdowski decided he didn’t agree with the state’s position, and he approved of the interview.
Lorain County Sheriff?s Capt. James Drozdowski said that is because he doesn?t share the state?s philosophy.
?Hopefully, something good is going to come out of something bad. If it saves one kid, to me, it was worth it,? he said.
If it’s your job, will it still be worth it, Jim?
The interview will air Friday at 4:00 p.m. Jessica’s interview took place via satellite. She will talk about the importance of safe haven laws. The Judge, a Sheriff’s Detective and Jessica’s current boyfriend, Matt, also appear on the show courtesy of Oprah Winfrey, who flew them in for the taping back in September.
Would a safe haven law have saved that baby’s life? Would she have taken the baby to a safe drop point and left him, rather than viciously stab him to death? Personally, I doubt it, but that’s just me. There’s really no way for anyone — including Jessica — to say for sure, of course, but I’m betting Jessica will milk it for everything and will tearfully tell us all how if only she’d had that option available, why, she’d have taken it. Anything to shift the blame.
Prison denied Oprah interview to mother who killed newborn | Mother who killed newborn on Oprah Friday
Audrey Iacona: murderer or frightened teen-ager?
BULLETIN: At 11 a.m. Friday, Feb. 13, the jury returned guilty verdicts on five counts, acquitting only on the charge of murder. Judge James Kimbler sentenced her to eight years in prison..
Jury selection was meticulous process
Friend’s testimony key to trial?
Pathologist raises doubt about live birth
By MELISSA LIPOWSKI
Staff Writer
February 12, 1998
On the afternoon of May 1, 1997, 17-year-old Audrey Iacona gave birth to a son, alone, in the basement of her parents’ Granger Township home. At some point, that infant died.
These are the only two facts presented in Iacona’s murder trial on which Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman and Iacona’s defense team of Richard Marco and Mark DeVan agree.
——————————————————————————–
Audrey Iacona. Sun photo by Jeannine Mathis-Bertosa.
——————————————————————————–
Iacona’s attorneys contend the infant was born dead to a young, confused and frightened mother. She concealed every aspect of her pregnancy, down to several hours of excruciating labor, from family members, school officials and even her boyfriend, Gary Gaydemski, 19, of Parma Heights.
They say an aunt and three close girlfriends were the only people Iacona trusted with her secret.
Prosecutors claim this is a case in which the sanctity of human life simply got in the way of a young lady who wanted her freedom. They allege Iacona’s son was born alive and was suffocated when Iacona wrapped him in a blue bath towel and placed him inside two white kitchen-size trash bags.
It’s now up to a jury to decide when and how the baby died and whether Iacona should be convicted. She was tried on six felony charges on which she was indicted by a grand jury last summer for the death of her newborn son. Those charges include murder, involuntary manslaughter, endangering a child and abuse of a corpse.
If convicted of murder, Iacona, now a senior at Highland High School, could face 15 years to life in prison.
DeVan told jurors this was Iacona’s second pregnancy in less than two years and that she acted irrationally because she did not want her parents to find out she was pregnant again, even after continued warnings.
Because Iacona did not gain weight and had irregular bleeding throughout the pregnancy, she was uncertain whether she was pregnant almost up to the date she delivered.
Throughout her seven-month pregnancy, she maintained her spot on the school cheerleading team, tried out for the track team and even participated in a charity fashion show in which she had to model tight-fitting clothing.
And still, no one knew.
It was not until that spring afternoon, alone in the basement of her State Road home, when her worst fears came true, DeVan said during opening statements of the trial.
?
Iacona stayed home from Holy Name High School that day complaining of stomach pains that had started some time during the night. Iacona attributed the cramping to ongoing gastrointestinal problems, and had even taken an antacid for relief.
That afternoon, Iacona was still suffering. When she went to get a pizza from a freezer located in the basement, she said the pain grew even more intense. DeVan said Iacona felt a sharp pain “unlike any other she had felt before,” and at that point began associating the pain with labor contractions.
DeVan claims it was a very rapid labor and that Iacona panicked, knowing that it was two months too early for her to deliver. After pushing once, Iacona felt something between her legs.
Once she realized it was the baby’s head, she knelt down on one knee with her hands under the baby’s head in case he fell, and delivered the rest of him. She cut the umbilical cord herself with a pair of utility shears laying nearby and placed the baby on a blanket, DeVan said.
DeVan insists the baby did not cry or appear to be breathing and that his skin was discolored. He said Iacona cleaned his mouth, turned him on his side, but he still showed no signs of life. She assumed the infant was dead, wrapped him in a towel and placed him inside a plastic bag.
“Audrey thought the infant was dead. Now confusion and terror became fear,” DeVan said. “She had no idea what to do or who to tell. And even if she did, she did not know what to say. All she knew was there was a dead baby in her basement and she did not know what to do with it.”
All the while, her father Mark and mother Angela, a nurse, were upstairs getting ready for work. Yet Iacona never cried out in pain or called for help, DeVan said.
Even though she could barely stand, she went upstairs to a second floor bathroom, took a shower and delivered the placenta. A short time later, she received a call from her friend Lynn Scherma, 19, of North Royalton. During the conversation, Iacona told her that she had delivered a baby boy in the basement and it was born dead, DeVan said.
Horrified by the news, Scherma called her father at work and he relayed the information to authorities via a 911 call. A few hours later, detective Tadd Davis of the Medina County Sheriff’s Office discovered the baby’s body concealed in plastic bags under a pile of blankets in the utility room.
?
DeVan calls the incident a spontaneous abortion and told the jury he has the medical experts and testimony to prove it. He also argues that if the baby had been alive at birth, “it did not breathe for long.”
But four medical experts testifying for the prosecution say the 3.8-pound baby boy was born alive and lived for at least two to six minutes. They say that medical evidence collected during the May 2 autopsy of the infant revealed there was no evidence to support Iacona’s claim that the baby was stillborn.
“This baby was born alive and all it needed to stay that way was a warm blanket and an emergency phone call,” said Dr. Paul Gatewood, an Akron-based obstetrician and gynecologist who has delivered more than 4,000 babies in the 28 years he has been in practice.
After examining autopsy findings, Gatewood said that even though the baby was born premature, there is 98 percent probability that he could have survived with proper medical attention. Since the baby was born without any congenital abnormalities, the odds might have been even greater, he said.
Gatewood also refuted Iacona’s claims of a rapid delivery, stating that the baby’s head would not have been molded if it was a rapid delivery.
The question of whether Iacona suspected she was going into labor is expected to be an important element in the case.
Prosecutors contend Iacona knew she was in labor and could have gotten proper medical attention. The defense argues she could not have known she was in labor because she had no prior experience in identifying contractions.
Cristin Rolf conducted the autopsy at the Cuyahoga County Coroner’s Office. During her testimony, she claimed that internal and external examinations, X-rays and toxicology reports all pointed to asphyxia as the cause of death.
Rolf said any physical changes physicians usually look for in cases of asphyxia were absent and there were no cuts or bruises on the child. However, medical tests still confirmed that the infant took more than a breath of agony upon dying because such a large portion of his lungs, trachea, stomach and small intestine were aerated.
For that much air to be present in the baby’s body, he had to have been born alive and had to have taken more than five or six breaths, Rolf said.
Rolf’s supervisor, Robert Challener, said the baby’s lungs were a salmon pink color and their rubbery texture was starting to diminish. Had the baby been born dead, its lungs would have been gray in color and would have been very rubbery.
A “float test” of the baby’s lungs also concluded that the infant had been born alive. When placed in a glass of water, the lungs floated. Had there been no air in the lungs, they would have sunk to the bottom of the glass, she said.
Mark Collin, a neonatal pediatrician at Cleveland’s Metro General Hospital, agreed with the testimony of the other physicians.
“This baby had to live long enough to expand its lungs this much. One or two breaths cannot cause this amount of aeration,” Collin said. “Agonal breaths would not be strong enough to push air into the small intestine.”
Rolf and Challener admitted, however, that nobody, including physicians, “will ever know whether the baby was dead at the time he was placed in the plastic bag.”
The defense is hoping that testimony prevails in the minds of jurors as the defense presents its evidence this week.
“This case is really about a fearful teen-ager trapped in an adult’s body,” DeVan said. “Audrey is guilty of being a scared teen-ager. Audrey is guilty of making mistakes. But that does not make Audrey guilty of a crime.”
I agree Heather. I think the safe haven laws will definately not stop ALL these cases of infanticide from ocurring, but hopefully those #s would be greatly reduced.
Judge James Kimbler sentenced her to 8 years. You should have seen her televised temper tantrum. I was at home clapping! She only served 2 and 1/2 years of that 8. A different judge freed her.
Kristi, I agree. These cases are all tragic, so why do states “play” with these girls? Lock them up, and do not allow them back into society. There was a recent case of a 17 year old girl who stabbed a 15 year old girl to death. It happened here in my state. She is to be tried as an adult. She will never see the light of day again. Society is helping to send a very dangerous message about infanticide. They are contributing. If girls knew that they would face life in prison or the death penalty, I’m sure they might start singing a different tune.
Here are my points of contention. Maybe you can refute them:
-It legitimizes abandonment and raises it to a level of false “responsibility,” making the assumption that it’s kill your baby or abandon him. Adoption plans are free to make.
-We’ve stooped to accepting two evils, and hoping a women chooses the lesser of two evils which we provide. Once again, adoption plans are free. There need be NO evil.
-Medical history. The baby will have none. There’s no way to contact the mother.
-Psychological problems stemming from the abandonment (no information about heritage is problematic for a child’s development).
-The birthfather never relinquishes his rights, so he can hunt down and reclaim his baby anytime. There can’t be a citation by publication, because there is no information (I just wrote a poem).
-THIS LEGALIZES CHILD ABANDONMENT. Both abandonment and murder should be illegal. Neither should be accepted. Abandonment should not be a legal alternative to murder, when adoption plans and confidential and free.
-Panicky moms don’t walk their babies to fire stations. The whole concept seems flawed.
-Do these laws work? Are babies that would have been murdered or died from exposure saved instead? Let’s have a policy analysis and find out!
wow. And I’m wondering about the parents. How could the parents be so out of touch as to not realize their daughters were pregnant and delivering a baby in the basement / laundry room / toilet at the prom / etc.
I understand these girls lied lied lied and did everything they could to conceal the pregnancy … and yes that would work for a while. But how could you not know your child is down the hall on the floor of your laundry room giving birth to your grandchild?! How could a parent be so oblivious?
THIS LEGALIZES CHILD ABANDONMENT. Both abandonment and murder should be illegal. Neither should be accepted. Abandonment should not be a legal alternative to murder, when adoption plans and confidential and free.
This is a good point Jaccqueline. And I think abandonment is horrible. But for these young girls, who are going to hide it and tell NO one, what are the odds she will make an adoption plan for her baby? I think if that’s her only option, she may be more likely to just trash the baby instead.
Do these laws work? Are babies that would have been murdered or died from exposure saved instead? Let’s have a policy analysis and find out! Posted by: Jacqueline at October 30, 2007 10:31 AM
I would be really interested to know! Let’s find out! I think this would be the true answer as to whether safe haven laws are worthwhile.
Jacque, I agree with what you are saying, but until society takes the bull by the horns and says “ENOUGH!” and starts dishing out the punishment that these baby killers deserve, I’m afraid we don’t have much of a choice. What other solution is there?
To be honest, I would like to see these women locked up for life. Excuse me, but Melissa Drexler wants to work in the “fashion industry?” WHY is she even allowed to have that option? Does anyone else see the insanity here?
But for these young girls, who are going to hide it and tell NO one, what are the odds she will make an adoption plan for her baby?
What are the odds that she’s going to take it to a fire station? This is why I’m skeptical.
Well, one of the reasons. Another is the lack of advertising that lets people know about Safe Haven. Even another is the fact that this demographic wants to hide their pregnancies from everyone, so trashing the baby is going to look more appealing that taking her to a place full of people and handing her off.
Even another is the fact that any girl that would do this would likely not trust authorites much, so the fear of being seen or snitched on remains. Beyond that, how could any decent person take a baby from someone and not say, “Hey, you. Hold on! Let’s get some information from you.” I know I couldn’t hold a baby and watch everything a child needs to know about themselves walk scot-free out the front door. It’s absurd.
I would be really interested to know! Let’s find out! I think this would be the true answer as to whether safe haven laws are worthwhile.
I am,too. I think that I’ll do an analysis of this for my next policy class.
Jacque, I agree with what you are saying, but until society takes the bull by the horns and says “ENOUGH!” and starts dishing out the punishment that these baby killers deserve, I’m afraid we don’t have much of a choice. What other solution is there?
This is not a solution. It’s a downward spiral.
You’re saying we should raise the standard, but with these laws, we’re lowering the standard! By saying, “We EXPECT you to kill your kids, so why don’t you abandon them instead?” is lowering our standard for behavior. Saying, “You’re not allowed to abandon your baby and you will be severely punished if you do” as well as saying, “And if you murder your baby, don’t expect to see a day outside of prison.” perhaps this will stop. Raise the standard rather than legitimizing, legalizing and standardizing child abandonment. That whole, “People will do it anyway, so it should be legal” bs is a cop-out. It’s illegal because it hurts people and we must do what it takes to prevent people from hurting people, rather than legalizing and encouraging people to hurt people. Abandonment needs to stay illegal. Adoption plans need to be advertised and remain free. That’s the best we can do.
P.S. Heather, I see your point: while we allow murder inside the womb, it’s difficult to tell these girls not to murder outside the womb. Essentially we just say to them, “You should have killed your baby while pregnant. Then you’d have no consequences.” But we have to reclaim lost ground, not continue to surrender it.
Jacque,
If memory serves me correctly, the lady who came up with the idea of safe haven was interviewed on EWTN several years ago. I don’t remember details, but she explained how she came about devising a way where these unwanted, birthed babies could be saved rather than trashed.
It was a catholic/christian answer to the injustice of newborns in Hefties.
Well, tell me who to write to then. I want stiffer penalties for infanticide.
Until abortion goes away, infanticide will just remain a big fat joke to society. As Mother Teresa said..”If we allow a woman to kill her own child [abortion] How can we tell people not to kill each other?”
Jacque, I’m in agreement with you. Yes. This is where most people say “Well, why didn’t she have an abortion before it came to this?” Wrong, wrong, and wrong again! Murder is murder. I guess these women just believed that they were giving themselves a third trimester abortion. Pop out the kid, kill it, dump it. No abortion fees to pay. What a sick world we live in!!!
heather,
the only thing I find odd about that opposition to Save Haven laws is that they say that it is encouraging irresponsibility.
Abortion isn’t?!
PIP, right!
Carder,
Just because an idea is invented by Christians/Catholics doesn’t mean that it’s automatically a good one.
And the jury’s still out with me regarding Safe Haven laws. I don’t blindly accept them, and I’m wanted someone to explain why I should or I’ll continue to be skeptical.
PIP,
I don’t oppose Safe Haven laws because it encourages irresponsibility. I think placing a baby with an adoptive family can be a responsible thing. Abandonment, however, is a whole nother issue.
Beyond that, saying that people will have irresponsible sex because they can birth and dump babies is ridiculous. People have irresponsible sex because they can abort babies (48% of abortions are repeats for this reason).
People that birth and abandoned babies are often shocked at their pregnancy, in denial or afraid. Hence why I think Safe Haven laws won’t work.
I’d love to see or do an analysis of infant mortality/homicide from abandonment before Safe Haven and after Safe Haven to see if there is a statistically significant difference. I doubt I’ll find one. If I do, I’ll have more reason to support this law.
How can anyone ask if the safe haven law works? The babies that are brought there are ALIVE! Yes, it gives an irresponsible woman an easy way out, BUT it’s an easy way out in which another person isn’t harmed. Baby steps people.
Published: December 03, 2006 12:00 am
Featured letter: Keep baby Safe Haven law working
Eagle-Tribune
To the editor:
In the four years before the Safe Haven Act of Massachusetts took effect, 13 babies were abandoned in the commonwealth and six of them died. On Oct. 29, 2004, the law became effective and whittled the number of abandoned babies down to two. The Safe Haven Act, which designates police and fire stations, as well as hospitals, as safe zones for parents to bring their newborns without fear of prosecution, has saved three babies to date.
Read this article in full with a
“Beyond that, how could any decent person take a baby from someone and not say, “Hey, you. Hold on! Let’s get some information from you.”
Another reason it works, there are no questions asked. It isn’t a lesser of two evils if that child is adopted by a loving couple. Consider it a closed adoption. Who really cares about a medical history anyway? If depression runs in my family, I may or may not get it, I won’t know unless it happens anyway. I doubt there will be any statistics on the before and after this law because it is relatively new.
I guess it is working. I believe that the babies can be turned in, and then they are placed for adoption. Abortion legalization has put this country into such a horrid state, it’s going to take a long time to clean things up.
Rosie, agreed – it’s not a “perfect solution” and it’s reflective of a sad situation, but it gives the mother a solution which may be okay with her, where others won’t be.
Doug
Heather asked, What other solution is there?
My Proposed Initiative to Combat Abandonment/Infanticide
-This is a rough idea and is not without its liabilities-
1. Advertise that women who give birth but want to remain anonymous to place their child can dial 911.
2. An Officer and Social Worker respond to the call wherever the mother wants to meet, in her home or anywhere else.
3. The Officer recieves the baby and gets appropriate medical care if necessary.
4. The Social Worker signs a confidentiality agreement with the client assuring her that she is immune from charges (drugs, alcohol, etc.)
5. The Social Worker does an assessment on the mother and determines mental capacity, if medical care is mandated, etc.
6. The Social Worker conducts an interview asking medical questions and relevant information and carefully documents the information.
7. The Social Worker gets information on the father to seek relinquishment or citation by publication.
8. The mother signs an affidavit agreeing to be contacted by a third party is additional information is needed (Keep in mind, this is in exchange for both immunity and the ability to abandon the baby on the spot, so she should sign without trouble).
9. The mother signs away her rights.
10. The Social Worker offers her free, confidential counseling to deal with the placement of the baby, as well as case management to help her overcome any other issues she may have.
The pros of this plan include:
1. Baby was placed for adoption, not abandoned.
2. Baby has medical info and the option for more info as needed.
3. Baby is legally relinquished and the father can not seek custody later.
4. Mother has help she needs in dealing with grief (as well as medical attention).
5. Records of the child can allow for a reunification later if both parties choose to.
So I think this could accomplish all that Safe Haven offers with fewer pitfalls.
Your thoughts?
Abortion legalization has put this country into such a horrid state, it’s going to take a long time to clean things up.
Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 1:48 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How has legalized abortion affected this country?
I – and the rest of America’s voters – can come up with a dozen things that actually DO affect this country negatively, and none of them involve anything uterine… (except possibly healthcare)
5. The Social Worker does an assessment on the mother and determines mental capacity, if medical care is mandated, etc.
6. The Social Worker conducts an interview asking medical questions and relevant information and carefully documents the information.
7. The Social Worker gets information on the father to seek relinquishment or citation by publication.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, I don’t know if you’ve ever had to deal with Social Services, but by this point I’M ready to toss the baby into a dumpster, and I don’t even have a baby.
The whole point is anonymity with no questions asked. Pensylvania screwed this up by pursuing the mothers of Haven babies that tested positive for controlled substances, and the number of Safe Haven babies dropped by more than half.
Wonder where they went?…
Dang, Jacqueline, that’s pretty darn good.
It’s still predicated on the woman’s willingness to do it, but you’ve put a ton of good thought into it.
Doug
Jacque, I think it sounds like a great idea!
Rosie,
Who really cares about a medical history anyway?
Says the person who has it! You can’t possibly imagine the agony of no knowing who you are and where you came from, because you were likely raised by your biological family like I was. You can cavalierly say, “Who cares?” because you can have a copy of your birth certificate. Not everyone can, and that hurts. I think you underestimate having information about yourself withheld from you.
It’s tough to form an identity as a kid not knowing where your nose came from or who you take after. Adoptees treasure their medical history. It’s a little window into the core of who they are.
Yes, it gives an irresponsible woman an easy way out, BUT it’s an easy way out in which another person isn’t harmed.
You think a child that is abandoned that knows nothing of their heritage isn’t harmed by that? Even adoptees with lots of anonymous info on their birthparents deal with abandonment and self-identity issues. You can be flippant about such info because you don’t know what it’s like to be without it. I don’t know what’s it like to be without it, but having worked in adoption I could see the hurt felt by people for this reason.
NOTE: I don’t oppose abandonment because it’s an “easy way out,” I oppose abandonment because of the harm to the child. I don’t care whether it’s easy or hard: it’s wrong. There’s a better way.
Placement is not abandonment. Women can place children for free. Do you oppose adoption placement in favor of baby dumping?
Consider it a closed adoption.
Even closed adoptions offer de-identified records to adoptees. An abandoned child won’t have those records. Why can’t we get that info?
The babies that are brought there are ALIVE!
I disagree that it’s abandonment or death. We’ll see what a comprehensive analysis says, though.
Heather said: Pensylvania screwed this up by pursuing the mothers of Haven babies that tested positive for controlled substances, and the number of Safe Haven babies dropped by more than half.
Exactly. That’s why my plan would offer immunity to moms who place.
It’s still predicated on the woman’s willingness to do it
Thanks, Doug. It’s all predicated on her willingness to do it, but I think offering immunity would encourage her to do this rather than a dumpster.
but you’ve put a ton of good thought into it.
I actually just pulled it out of my @ss. It needs some work, but I think it could accomplish the same end without the same liabilities.
Jacque, I think it sounds like a great idea!
Thanks, Heather. Maybe all this money I fork over for policy school might pay off. :)
Sorry Heather- That was Laura that said that.
And nota bene: It’s not the anonymity so much as the immunity. It’s not being pursued by cops. My plan accomplishes that.
Jacque, no problemooo.
Uhh…I don’t know a darn thing about my medical history as an adoptee. I don’t really care.
Jacqueline: I actually just pulled it out of my @ss.
Ha! Still, ya done good. Sometimes the best things just sort of write themselves, come out like they are already well-composed.
You put a big smile on my face with some of the things you say, J. Like when you said that Janis was “friggin’ huge.” Took me by surprise there.
Doug
You think a child that is abandoned that knows nothing of their heritage isn’t harmed by that?
Dr. J, exactly. I picture a poor little kid, seeing other kids with parents, and wondering why he doesn’t have any. “Where are my parents?” “Why didn’t they want me?” It gets me choked-up.
Doug
I delight in amusing you, Doug. (aka Can In Any Room Do It Guy)
Uhh…I don’t know a darn thing about my medical history as an adoptee. I don’t really care.
Yeah, well you are young and healthy. Most of the people calling me for their deidentified records when considerably older than you.
Dr. J,
*looks around, then points sheepishly at self*
me?
Yeah you.
Can In Any Room Do It Guy
Sad to say, Chuck E. Cheese’s “Ball Room” has been scratched from my list….
Sad to say, Chuck E. Cheese’s “Ball Room” has been scratched from my list….
Mine, too…Thanks to you.
I’m so bummed.
Jacqueline, I think I saved you a trip. Had you gone and smelled all the pee, it wouldn’t have worked out anyway.
You can get your own ball pits at Toys R us and place them whereever you want…
Inflate N Play Dragon Ball Pit
Our Price: $29.99
Jumbo Lounging Elmo for $7.99 With Any Toy Purchase of $50!**
Elmo rocks.
Only when you tickle him…otherwise he just stands still.
“Elmos Uzi” – one of my favorite Screen Names.
He was a Most Peculiar Man…
Hey, I’m really sorry, but I was using tinyurl to shorten your links to the chucky cheese stuff and I inadvertently erased them. You can tinyurl them yourself or … again, sorry.
They were just so long and making the page sttttttrrrrreeeeeeeettttttccccccchhhhhhh out!
I had a “Monk” moment and tried to clean them up.
Ooops.
No prob, MK, not a big deal at all.
And Doctor Suess rocks, though he’s not quite as adept with an uzi as Elmo is.
“I had a “Monk” moment and tried to clean them up”
Are you also a Monk fan??!!
Rosie,
I LOVE MONK!
Thanks Doug,
See? I was wrong! Sometimes you DO understand :)
You can get your own ball pits at Toys R us and place them whereever you want…
I know what I want for Christmas!
I know what I want for Christmas!
Jacqueline, you rock. Like a big god-a-mighty force. Doesn’t matter which side of the argument one is on – you got it goin’ on.
Doug
Jacqueline, you rock. Like a big god-a-mighty force. Doesn’t matter which side of the argument one is on – you got it goin’ on.
You flatter the ever-lovin’ crap out of me, Doug. You’ve also inspired a movie quote:
a-hem…
” “Fox Force Five.” Fox, as in we’re a bunch of foxy chicks. Force, as in we’re a force to be reckoned with. Five, as in there’s one..two …three..four..five of us.” -Pulp Fiction