MASSACHUSETTS
http://www2.townonline.com/belmont/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=103277
Voters to get 3 questions
By Linda Pinkow/ Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 13, 2004

When Belmont residents go to the polls on Nov. 2, in addition to choosing a
President and national and state legislators, they will also be asked to answer
three ballot questions which will measure public sentiment regarding three
contentious issues.

The questions are non-binding, so a Yes or No answer will not have any
immediate effect on Massachusetts law.

However, lawmakers and others will be studying the results for possible
future action.

The second ballot question in Belmont asks voters whether "the state
representative from this district" should be instructed to vote for legislation
that would allow a woman "or someone acting on her behalf" to give up a newborn
who is seven days old or younger in certain emergency locations, while
remaining anonymous and being immune from prosecution.

The state Legislature approved a similar measure, known as the Baby Safe
Havens law, in August. Advocates for the measure have said the non-binding
ballot questions, which will appear in several districts in the commonwealth,
will help promote some changes to the recently-enacted law.

State Rep. Anne Paulsen, D-Belmont, has been a vocal opponent of the
measure.

>Subject: MA - Voters to get 3 questionsFrom: babysafehaven@aol.com (BabySafeHaven)Date: 10/13/2004
When Belmont residents go to the polls on Nov. 2, in addition to choosing aPresident and national and state legislators, they will also be asked toanswerthree ballot questions which will measure public sentiment regarding threecontentious issues. The questions are non-binding, so a Yes or No answer will not have anyimmediate effect on Massachusetts law. However, lawmakers and others will be studying the results for possiblefuture action. The second ballot question in Belmont asks voters whether "the staterepresentative from this district" should be instructed to vote forlegislationthat would allow a woman "or someone acting on her behalf" to give up anewbornwho is seven days old or younger in certain emergency locations, whileremaining anonymous and being immune from prosecution. The state Legislature approved a similar measure, known as the Baby SafeHavens law, in August. Advocates for the measure have said the non-bindingballot questions, which will appear in several districts in the commonwealth,will help promote some changes to the recently-enacted law. State Rep. Anne Paulsen, D-Belmont, has been a vocal opponent of themeasure.

Wow, a poll at the poll. Maybe their presidential elections should be non
binding too. Just wondering, why set the age limit at 7 days? Why not let
anyone acting on moms behalf relinquish kids at any age. Think of the savings
for child protective services to not have to make those tedious investigations
and all of that documentation would be simplified. They could call it the
RobinHood Act. Kathy J

"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041013211953.25357.00001223@mb-m22.aol.com...Subject: MA - Voters to get 3 questionsFrom: babysafehaven@aol.com (BabySafeHaven)Date: 10/13/2004When Belmont residents go to the polls on Nov. 2, in addition to choosingaPresident and national and state legislators, they will also be asked toanswerthree ballot questions which will measure public sentiment regarding threecontentious issues. The questions are non-binding, so a Yes or No answer will not have anyimmediate effect on Massachusetts law. However, lawmakers and others will be studying the results for possiblefuture action. The second ballot question in Belmont asks voters whether "the staterepresentative from this district" should be instructed to vote forlegislationthat would allow a woman "or someone acting on her behalf" to give up anewbornwho is seven days old or younger in certain emergency locations, whileremaining anonymous and being immune from prosecution. The state Legislature approved a similar measure, known as the Baby SafeHavens law, in August. Advocates for the measure have said the non-bindingballot questions, which will appear in several districts in thecommonwealth,will help promote some changes to the recently-enacted law. State Rep. Anne Paulsen, D-Belmont, has been a vocal opponent of themeasure. Wow, a poll at the poll. Maybe their presidential elections should be non binding too. Just wondering, why set the age limit at 7 days? Why not let anyone acting on moms behalf relinquish kids at any age. Think of the savings for child protective services to not have to make those tedious investigations and all of that documentation would be simplified. They could call it the RobinHood Act. Kathy J

Don't give them any ideas, Kathy!

Marley

Send it to the Department of Redundancy Department and file under "Beating a dead
horse".

Ron

BabySafeHaven wrote:
MASSACHUSETTS http://www2.townonline.com/belmont/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=103277 Voters to get 3 questions By Linda Pinkow/ Staff Writer Wednesday, October 13, 2004 When Belmont residents go to the polls on Nov. 2, in addition to choosing a President and national and state legislators, they will also be asked to answer three ballot questions which will measure public sentiment regarding three contentious issues. The questions are non-binding, so a Yes or No answer will not have any immediate effect on Massachusetts law. However, lawmakers and others will be studying the results for possible future action. The second ballot question in Belmont asks voters whether "the state representative from this district" should be instructed to vote for legislation that would allow a woman "or someone acting on her behalf" to give up a newborn who is seven days old or younger in certain emergency locations, while remaining anonymous and being immune from prosecution. The state Legislature approved a similar measure, known as the Baby Safe Havens law, in August. Advocates for the measure have said the non-binding ballot questions, which will appear in several districts in the commonwealth, will help promote some changes to the recently-enacted law. State Rep. Anne Paulsen, D-Belmont, has been a vocal opponent of the measure.