No wonder your ally Kathy Teahan is flip-flopping so many times, she's got a 70
year old Grandmom on her tail, with a certified ballot question to hit her
with.
~ Jean
==========
MASSACHUSETTS
http://www.enterprisenews.com/articles/2004/07/02/news/news/news10.txt
Whitman resident pushes vote on safe haven issue

n Safe haven laws allow parents to leave an infant at a designated safe place,
such as a hospital or police station, without fear of criminal prosecution.

By Debbie Seele

ENTERPRISE CORRESPONDENT

WHITMAN — Although the Senate is scheduled to vote soon on a "safe baby
haven" law in Massachusetts, Whitman resident Marion Bois is preparing to put
the issue on the ballot in 2006 in Abington, East Bridgewater and Whitman.

Safe haven laws give parents the ability to leave an infant at a designated
safe place, such as a hospital or police station, without fear of criminal
prosecution.

Bois said she has collected the signatures necessary to force a public policy
ballot question that would instruct the state representative to vote in favor
of the legislation.

But state Rep. Kathleen Teahan, D-Whitman, said she supports the legislation
filed by state Rep. Thomas O'Brien, D-Kingston, and voted for it March 7, when
the bill passed the House of Representatives.

Teahan expects the current bill is likely to have enough votes to pass the
Senate.

"It is a good bill, and we worked very hard to make it one of the best
safe-haven bills in the country," said Teahan.

The timing of Bois' announcement has caused some people to question whether it
is an election year strategy.

Teahan is being challenged by another Whitman resident, former state Sen.
Edward Kirby, a Republican.

Bill Eagan, chairman of the Whitman Democratic Town Committee, said the fact
that Marion Bois is the mother of Republican Town Committee Chairman Steven
Bois calls her motives into question.

"I think Kathleen Teahan has been a strong advocate for children's issues for
10 years," said Eagan.

"The motivation in my mind is this must be political."

Bois challenged that assertion as well as Teahan's support of the safe baby
haven bill.

"She voted for something and against something and then worked in the
background and that is what I believe is happening," said Bois. "There is a
group working behind the scenes to prevent this from happening."

Teahan said she has no idea why anyone would question her support of the bill
and said she has worked on the bill for the two years it has been in the House
to include publicizing health and adoption services for pregnant women in
crisis.

"I had an amendment added that for all the outreach and advertisements done for
the safe haven law, there would be an equal amount spent for advertising for
teen pregnancy prevention, counseling and adoption services," said Teahan.

"The critical danger to a young woman in those circumstances is she could die
during the delivery, and the need for prenatal care for the mother and baby,"
Teahan said.

Teahan said she talked to pediatricians, obstetricians, public safety personnel
and people who had been adopted or abandoned as children to get input on the
bill.

"We spent time so it wouldn't be something that looked good on the surface but
would be detrimental if it wasn't done properly," she said.

But Bois said she was unaware of the amendment and she supports the original
proposal without the added advertising of services.

"We don't want more taxes added to it, more social workers added to it. We want
the simple form," said Bois.

Bois said the free health care and adoption services are in place already and
what she thinks is needed is a safe place to drop off unwanted babies.

"You can't get them to go (to the free services), but maybe this is something
they can use," said Bois.

And if the bill is not passed by the state Senate, Bois is ready to try again.

"It's the safest thing to do. If they don't get the bill passed, we'll put it
on the ballot," she said.

Care to discuss why you're on Live from Arlington.com account was suspended.

Marley


"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040703125807.29831.00000970@mb-m18.aol.com... No wonder your ally Kathy Teahan is flip-flopping so many times, she's got
a 70 year old Grandmom on her tail, with a certified ballot question to hit her with. ~ Jean ========== MASSACHUSETTS http://www.enterprisenews.com/articles/2004/07/02/news/news/news10.txt Whitman resident pushes vote on safe haven issue n Safe haven laws allow parents to leave an infant at a designated safe
place, such as a hospital or police station, without fear of criminal
prosecution. By Debbie Seele ENTERPRISE CORRESPONDENT WHITMAN - Although the Senate is scheduled to vote soon on a "safe baby haven" law in Massachusetts, Whitman resident Marion Bois is preparing to
put the issue on the ballot in 2006 in Abington, East Bridgewater and Whitman. Safe haven laws give parents the ability to leave an infant at a
designated safe place, such as a hospital or police station, without fear of criminal prosecution. Bois said she has collected the signatures necessary to force a public
policy ballot question that would instruct the state representative to vote in
favor of the legislation. But state Rep. Kathleen Teahan, D-Whitman, said she supports the
legislation filed by state Rep. Thomas O'Brien, D-Kingston, and voted for it March 7,
when the bill passed the House of Representatives. Teahan expects the current bill is likely to have enough votes to pass the Senate. "It is a good bill, and we worked very hard to make it one of the best safe-haven bills in the country," said Teahan. The timing of Bois' announcement has caused some people to question
whether it is an election year strategy. Teahan is being challenged by another Whitman resident, former state Sen. Edward Kirby, a Republican. Bill Eagan, chairman of the Whitman Democratic Town Committee, said the
fact that Marion Bois is the mother of Republican Town Committee Chairman
Steven Bois calls her motives into question. "I think Kathleen Teahan has been a strong advocate for children's issues
for 10 years," said Eagan. "The motivation in my mind is this must be political." Bois challenged that assertion as well as Teahan's support of the safe
baby haven bill. "She voted for something and against something and then worked in the background and that is what I believe is happening," said Bois. "There is
a group working behind the scenes to prevent this from happening." Teahan said she has no idea why anyone would question her support of the
bill and said she has worked on the bill for the two years it has been in the
House to include publicizing health and adoption services for pregnant women in crisis. "I had an amendment added that for all the outreach and advertisements
done for the safe haven law, there would be an equal amount spent for advertising
for teen pregnancy prevention, counseling and adoption services," said Teahan. "The critical danger to a young woman in those circumstances is she could
die during the delivery, and the need for prenatal care for the mother and
baby," Teahan said. Teahan said she talked to pediatricians, obstetricians, public safety
personnel and people who had been adopted or abandoned as children to get input on
the bill. "We spent time so it wouldn't be something that looked good on the surface
but would be detrimental if it wasn't done properly," she said. But Bois said she was unaware of the amendment and she supports the
original proposal without the added advertising of services. "We don't want more taxes added to it, more social workers added to it. We
want the simple form," said Bois. Bois said the free health care and adoption services are in place already
and what she thinks is needed is a safe place to drop off unwanted babies. "You can't get them to go (to the free services), but maybe this is
something they can use," said Bois. And if the bill is not passed by the state Senate, Bois is ready to try
again. "It's the safest thing to do. If they don't get the bill passed, we'll put
it on the ballot," she said.

Hello Group:

I am a bit curious about this "safe haven" issue. I have just recently
gotten back into visiting this group so it would be helpful to me to find
out what is happening and who the players are. From what I have seen it
appears that the idea is to allow mothers (parents?) to essentially abandon
thier child without fear of beng charged with abandonment by leaving said
child at at designated safe-haven location. First off do I understand this
correctly and, secondly, would someone be kind enough to tell me how this
all came about? Thanks. Happy 4th of July.

Raymond

"sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1OWdnQ6a9s2BsXrdRVn-sA@adelphia.com... Hello Group: I am a bit curious about this "safe haven" issue. I have just recently gotten back into visiting this group so it would be helpful to me to find out what is happening and who the players are. From what I have seen it appears that the idea is to allow mothers (parents?) to essentially
abandon thier child without fear of beng charged with abandonment by leaving said child at at designated safe-haven location. First off do I understand this correctly and, secondly, would someone be kind enough to tell me how this all came about? Thanks. Happy 4th of July. Raymond

That's correct. Dumps are backed by the National Council for Adoption as a
repsonse to open records, something the admit openly.

Here's some links:
Bastard Nation: Legalized Baby Abandonment Laws Fact Sheet
www.bastards.org/mediaroom/babyAbandonment.html

Bastard Nation: Baby Abandonment Bibliography
www.bastards.org/mediaroom/abandonmentReader.html

Bastard Nation: Statement on Legalized Abandonment Laws
www.bastards.org/activism/legalized-abandonment.html

Bastard Nation: Response to Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute Report on
Safe Haven Laws
www.bastards.org/activism/EBDreport.html

Bastard Nation: What Critics of Baby Abandonment Laws Are Saying
http://www.bastards.org/alert/babydump-quotes.htm

American Adoption Congress: Statement on Legalized Abandonment Laws
www.americanadoptioncongress.org/position-statements.htm

Ethica: Position Paper on Safe Haven Laws
www.ethicanet.org/item.asp?recordid=safehaven&pagestyle=default

Evan B. Donaldson Institute: Press Release and "Unintended Consequences:
"Safe Haven Laws are Causing Problems, Not Solving Them
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/whowe/lastreport_coverpage.html

I'll let the Morriseys speak for themselves.

Marley

Marley:

Thanks for the reply. If I undersatnd your synopsis correctly the actual
purpose of this (proposed?) law is to allow birth parents to remain
anonymous. Why is this so important?

I will check the links you provided as soon as I get a bit of free time.
Thanks again.

Raymond

"sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:8pednVMXfYIA73rdRVn-sA@adelphia.com... Marley: Thanks for the reply. If I undersatnd your synopsis correctly the actual purpose of this (proposed?) law is to allow birth parents to remain anonymous. Why is this so important? I will check the links you provided as soon as I get a bit of free time. Thanks again. Raymond

That's what everybody wonders. It's supposed to guarantee that the parent
will feel safe that her identity won't be revealed to the dirty little
secret years later in dumping the baby. Otherwise she'll just have to kill
it. Backers of the bills don't like women very much and have no faith in
their decision-making processes. Of course, those women who are the alleged
target of the laws aren't about to drop their little bundle off at the
nearest hospital or fire station. The real thrust of the law is the
codification of guaranteed anon into adoption law.

The funny thing is that some of these dumps are very identified
"non-bureaucratic placements," and we're finding more and more cases of
women who SH out of convenience. BTW, parents who leave newborns in safe
places aren't prosecuted anyway, despite the propaganda to the contrary. If
they weren't the parents of the 30,000+ boarder babies who are left in
hospitals by parents each year wouldn't be in the slammer.

SH is just so darned earlier than
informed consent and paperwork.. Next think you know they'll be pushing for
legalized car theft and squatting for those who find buy a care or a house
to onerous.

Marley

PS Here's NCFA's state on MA. It's not on their webpage yet, though.

NCFA Press Release - May 12, 2004
For Immediate Release

------------------------------------------------------------

One More Step Toward Victory for Newborn Safety in Massachusetts: Bay State
Would Become the 46th State to Provide Safe Havens for Newborns

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, July 2, 2004 - Late yesterday, the
Massachusetts State Senate unanimously approved Safe Haven
legislation, which will bring the number of states with such laws
protecting the lives of vulnerable newborns to 46. The
Massachusetts House of Representatives has overwhelmingly already
approved similar legislation. If the House agrees to the Senate
version, the legislation may reach Governor Mitt Romney's desk as
early as next week. A spokesperson for the governor said that the
Romney administration supports the concept of the bill.
Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey testified in favor of Safe
Havens in 2003.

Under the new law, parents will be allowed to place a newborn
anonymously and legally at a designated Safe Haven, such as a
hospital, police station, or fire station, within seven days of
the child's birth, without fear of being charged with child
abandonment, unless the baby shows signs of physical abuse. The
Department of Social Services will take custody of children
placed with Safe Havens. Parents would not lose their parental
rights until the state obtains a court order of termination, at
which time efforts to place the child for adoption would proceed.

"By allowing desperate parents a non-threatening escape from
their perceived crisis, the Safe Haven law provides them a safe
place where they can go, in order to avoid harming or destroying
their newborn's life, as well as their own," according to
National Council For Adoption (NCFA) President Thomas Atwood.
"These laws are saving babies' lives across the country. Safe
Haven foundations in 33 states have documented over 250 children
being placed under the law."

While the bill's approval is a positive development, passage was
not without struggle. Some lawmakers expressed concern that
parents would not be required to disclose personal histories and
children adopted through the law would not have access to
identifying birthparent information. But access to such
information is of no use to the baby who dies from unsafe
abandonment. Other legislators objected to the bill's spending on
advertising to publicize Safe Havens. But desperate parents
inclined toward harming their newborns need to know that this
safe option exists in order to benefit from it.

To alleviate concerns, sponsors added a "sunset provision" that
would make the law expire on January 1, 2006, unless the
legislature takes action to make it permanent.

"Although the sunset provision is unfortunate, this unanimous
vote is a positive development for the cause of child welfare
in Massachusetts," said Atwood. "If there is adequate publicity
for Safe Havens, the Bay State's experience will be the same as
that of other states' across the country: Newborns' lives will
be saved."

For information or to arrange an interview, please contact NCFA's
Director of Communications, Lee Allen. (Office) 703-535-1919,
(Cell, 24/7) 301-693-6513, or email lallen@infantadopt.org.

For more news and information, click here to visit NCFA's website.:
http://m1e.net/c?25937420-YQi6JoUJwRfk6%40579566-iZ2WPv53L3nQ2

------------------------------------------------------------

About NCFA

Since 1980, NCFA has been a leading voice among national adoption
and child welfare organizations. NCFA is a research, education,
and advocacy nonprofit that provides adoption information,
promotes ethical adoption practices, informs public policy and
opinion about adoption issues, and serves as a resource for women
with unplanned pregnancies, adopted persons and their families,
those seeking to adopt, and adoption professionals.

Click here to visit the NCFA website.:
http://m1e.net/c?25937420-bAY5NrgiT/A.k%40579566-3TmZor9fkSr06

------------------------------------------------------------


You can contact NCFA by mail, phone, fax, and email:

National Council For Adoption

225 N. Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314

703-299-6633 (Phone)

703-299-6004 (fax)

ncfa@adoptioncouncil.org

Thanks for getting back to me. Has anyone documented the results in those
states that have this law already? Has it been demonstrated that the rate of
infanticide has decreased in these states at all? How do the states handle
the issue of obaining permission from the parents before placing the child
up for adoption?

Thanks again

Raymond

"sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:P7udndVcT5BbYXrdRVn-jA@adelphia.com... Thanks for getting back to me. Has anyone documented the results in those states that have this law already? Has it been demonstrated that the rate
of infanticide has decreased in these states at all? How do the states handle the issue of obaining permission from the parents before placing the child up for adoption? Thanks again Raymond

----- Original Message -----
From: "sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net>
Newsgroups: alt.adoption
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: MA - Run Teahen RUN!!! - Whitman resident pushes vote on safe
haven issue

Thanks for getting back to me. Has anyone documented the results in those states that have this law already? Has it been demonstrated that the rate
of infanticide has decreased in these states at all? How do the states handle the issue of obaining permission from the parents before placing the child up for adoption? Thanks again Raymond

Most states did not include a tracking mechanism in it's law. There were so
studies on newborn abandonment/neonaticide before the laws were passed, and
none after. I'm documenting what I can, but most of it comes from press
coverage. It's not totally accurate, but it gives us a good idea of what is
going on. There is nothing to come close to suggesting that the laws work.

In the few states that track, they don't do a good job of it. In
California, for instance, which does track, their figures ae so divergent
and inaccuate that they are almost useless. At the end of 2003, the state
announced that SH was working, that only 1 newborn had been found dead that
year. The fact is that 12 were found dead. I documented 8. I contacted
Marjie Lundstrom from the Sacramento Bee, who is a big advocate of SH about
this error. She did a Dow search and found 3 more. Total 12--not 1.

Likewise, the state can't even keep the number of SH babies
straight. On October 3, 2002 the state claimed that 20 newborns had been
SH. A month later, November 7, 2002, they had to oops themselves. The
figure was really 11. They'd counted boarder babies in with SH. One can
only ask how many other "mistakes" have been made.

SH laws tend to contradict state and federal laws already on the books. .
There's a move to terminate parental rights upon SH "relinquishment" and to
not go through mandated due diligence. searches. There
is currently a proposal in NJ A 312--
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/Default.asp (type in bill number and follow
links) that would ban due diligence searches for the
non-custodial parents or kin if the identity of a SH dumper is known. For
all intents and purposes, abrogating bfather's rights. They argue that this
is needed to "encourage" women to SH their babies. I spoke to an aide to
one of the sponsors a couple weeks ago and was informed that DYFS was "not
tasked" to do searches. It's pretty clear that a similar measure will be
soon introduce by Geanie Morison in TX. Seems those pesky social workers in
Harris County and elsewhere take their jobs seriously and search, and have
been vocal about it in the press. The first "real" SH case in TX was
"overturned" when a search for the Dad was made and he took custody. BTW,
in TX, adoption agencies are SH drop-off points. How cozy.

You can bet that if the majority of people who SH were men, there's be a hue
and cry heard all the way to Mars.

Marley

The Morrisseys escaped from the primal ooze riding an abandoned baby, and now that
the issue is settled they hear intimations of obscurity calling them home. They
want to remain among the bipeds, and they'll peddle their asses to whomever will
give them a forum.

Ron



BabySafeHaven wrote:
No wonder your ally Kathy Teahan is flip-flopping so many times, she's got a 70 year old Grandmom on her tail, with a certified ballot question to hit her with. ~ Jean ========== MASSACHUSETTS http://www.enterprisenews.com/articles/2004/07/02/news/news/news10.txt Whitman resident pushes vote on safe haven issue n Safe haven laws allow parents to leave an infant at a designated safe place, such as a hospital or police station, without fear of criminal prosecution. By Debbie Seele ENTERPRISE CORRESPONDENT WHITMAN — Although the Senate is scheduled to vote soon on a "safe baby haven" law in Massachusetts, Whitman resident Marion Bois is preparing to put the issue on the ballot in 2006 in Abington, East Bridgewater and Whitman. Safe haven laws give parents the ability to leave an infant at a designated safe place, such as a hospital or police station, without fear of criminal prosecution. Bois said she has collected the signatures necessary to force a public policy ballot question that would instruct the state representative to vote in favor of the legislation. But state Rep. Kathleen Teahan, D-Whitman, said she supports the legislation filed by state Rep. Thomas O'Brien, D-Kingston, and voted for it March 7, when the bill passed the House of Representatives. Teahan expects the current bill is likely to have enough votes to pass the Senate. "It is a good bill, and we worked very hard to make it one of the best safe-haven bills in the country," said Teahan. The timing of Bois' announcement has caused some people to question whether it is an election year strategy. Teahan is being challenged by another Whitman resident, former state Sen. Edward Kirby, a Republican. Bill Eagan, chairman of the Whitman Democratic Town Committee, said the fact that Marion Bois is the mother of Republican Town Committee Chairman Steven Bois calls her motives into question. "I think Kathleen Teahan has been a strong advocate for children's issues for 10 years," said Eagan. "The motivation in my mind is this must be political." Bois challenged that assertion as well as Teahan's support of the safe baby haven bill. "She voted for something and against something and then worked in the background and that is what I believe is happening," said Bois. "There is a group working behind the scenes to prevent this from happening." Teahan said she has no idea why anyone would question her support of the bill and said she has worked on the bill for the two years it has been in the House to include publicizing health and adoption services for pregnant women in crisis. "I had an amendment added that for all the outreach and advertisements done for the safe haven law, there would be an equal amount spent for advertising for teen pregnancy prevention, counseling and adoption services," said Teahan. "The critical danger to a young woman in those circumstances is she could die during the delivery, and the need for prenatal care for the mother and baby," Teahan said. Teahan said she talked to pediatricians, obstetricians, public safety personnel and people who had been adopted or abandoned as children to get input on the bill. "We spent time so it wouldn't be something that looked good on the surface but would be detrimental if it wasn't done properly," she said. But Bois said she was unaware of the amendment and she supports the original proposal without the added advertising of services. "We don't want more taxes added to it, more social workers added to it. We want the simple form," said Bois. Bois said the free health care and adoption services are in place already and what she thinks is needed is a safe place to drop off unwanted babies. "You can't get them to go (to the free services), but maybe this is something they can use," said Bois. And if the bill is not passed by the state Senate, Bois is ready to try again. "It's the safest thing to do. If they don't get the bill passed, we'll put it on the ballot," she said.

Marley:

Thanks for the data. From the sound of it we seem to have folks who feel
they are doing a good thing (or are the sound bites the real motive? I hope
not) but are working from a very shaky base. I wonder if anyone has checked
with any adults who were abandoned as infants.Probably not as it seems that
all adoption laws are meant to "protect" (hide?) the birthparents while at
the same time denying the child, who has no say, his or her most basic
rights. I guess I would feel somewhat less cynical if I could see some sort
of valid data showing how this set of policies benefits the children which,
(am I missing something?) are suppossed to be the focus of all of this.I
hope your 4th is going well.

Raymond

"sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:lKidnecGtoC43XXdRVn-gw@adelphia.com... Marley: Thanks for the data. From the sound of it we seem to have folks who feel they are doing a good thing (or are the sound bites the real motive? I
hope not) but are working from a very shaky base. I wonder if anyone has
checked with any adults who were abandoned as infants.Probably not as it seems
that all adoption laws are meant to "protect" (hide?) the birthparents while at the same time denying the child, who has no say, his or her most basic rights. I guess I would feel somewhat less cynical if I could see some
sort of valid data showing how this set of policies benefits the children
which, (am I missing something?) are suppossed to be the focus of all of this.I hope your 4th is going well. Raymond

Well, adoptees have been shut out of the discouse. We who objcect to SH are
simply ungrateful or disturbed. Sally Howard, who was abandoned at birth
and has written a book, Finding Me in a Paper Bag, has been pretty vocal.
There have also been individual quotes in the press from aduls who were
abandoned as infants and are opposed. Of course, what would they know?

What is so bothersome is that many well-intentioned people refuse to take
seriously what NCFA has to say about the agenda. We live in an age of
denial, Raymond.

The 4th is fine so far . Cleaning house.

Marley

Marley;

I do not have the time to write a book but feel free to add me to the list
of disgruntled abandonees/adoptees. Have a good Monday. For the record I am
not at all angry as I cannot believe that anyone involved is trying to be
hurtful in any way. I really do want to believe that. I am merely sad and
just a bit frustrated. Good night.

Raymond

In article <P7udndVcT5BbYXrdRVn-jA@adelphia.com>, "sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net>
writes:
Thanks for getting back to me. Has anyone documented the results in thosestates that have this law already? Has it been demonstrated that the rate ofinfanticide has decreased in these states at all? How do the states handlethe issue of obaining permission from the parents before placing the childup for adoption?Thanks againRaymond


It's unfrotunate you weren't there to ask these questions as the Safe Haven
laws rolled through the various legislatures, Raymond.

J.









Reply to jmhjmd at aol.