MASSACHUSETTS
http://www.townonline.com/wilmington/news/local_regional/tew_covwibabysafe
01212004.htm

Voters to get say in child protection

By Richard Thompson / Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Town Meeting article could pave way for statewide law

WILMINGTON - The goal of the Town Meeting article is simple - put an end to
unsafe and possibly deadly baby abandonment.

Selectmen last week unanimously approved a warrant article that if passed at
the April annual Town Meeting, would instruct the town to petition the state
Legislature to approve a Baby Safe Haven home-rule petition for Wilmington.
That petition would allow parents to drop babies off at hospitals or police or
fire stations - without question.

Mike Morrissey of Lexington has been promoting the measure across the state.

"If the state won't do it, we'll do it," Morrissey said.

In May 2000, a Baby Safe Haven bill was filed in the state Legislature. The
Legislature has refused to approve the measure, making Massachusetts one of
only five states to be without Baby Safe Haven. The others states are Alaska,
Vermont, Nebraska and Hawaii.

Morrissey said 97 percent of the nation's population is covered by a Baby Safe
Haven law. If Massachusetts were to join the ranks, two-thirds of the remaining
3 percent would be included.

Massachusetts would be the last of the heavily populated, industrialized states
to join the ranks of Baby Safe Haven.

Morrissey said the groups and agencies charged with protecting child welfare
are the major opponents to Bay Safe Haven legislation. The Legislative
Children's Caucus is opposed to the measure.

"The highest concentration of anti-safe haven groups are associated with this
caucus," Morrissey said. "If they do not approve it, it does not get passed."

Morrissey added that because of the caucus, he does not expect Massachusetts to
approve a Baby Safe Haven law until after 2010. He added that Wilmington's
Beacon Hill delegation supports the measure.

The dim prospect for getting a statewide law passed led Morrissey and others to
adopt a new strategy. Approach the individual towns and ask them to approve
home-rule petitions.

He said that once 100 to 200 towns petition the Legislature, asking for Baby
Safe Haven laws for their communities, the state may follow suit and approve a
measure. He compared it to the statewide smoking ban, which took effect after a
number of communities passed their statutes.

Morrissey said the push in Massachusetts started in May 2000. On May 1 of that
year, a baby was left in the paring lot of St. Vincent's Hospital in Worcester.
It was found during a shift change, which possibly saved its life.

Morrissey added that since May 2000, 10 babies have been abandoned in the state
- six have died. Massachusetts is the only state with multiple instances of
baby abandonment during the past few years that hasn't adopted a Baby Safe
Haven law, he said.

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040121175901.24620.00000481@mb-m13.aol.com... MASSACHUSETTS http://www.townonline.com/wilmington/news/local_regional/tew_covwibabysafe 01212004.htm Voters to get say in child protection By Richard Thompson / Staff Writer Wednesday, January 21, 2004 Town Meeting article could pave way for statewide law WILMINGTON - The goal of the Town Meeting article is simple - put an end
to unsafe and possibly deadly baby abandonment.

Then someone needs to tell this august body that Safe Haven laws do not put
an end to it. Far from it.
Selectmen last week unanimously approved a warrant article that if passed
at the April annual Town Meeting, would instruct the town to petition the
state Legislature to approve a Baby Safe Haven home-rule petition for
Wilmington. That petition would allow parents to drop babies off at hospitals or
police or fire stations - without question. Mike Morrissey of Lexington has been promoting the measure across the
state. "If the state won't do it, we'll do it," Morrissey said. In May 2000, a Baby Safe Haven bill was filed in the state Legislature.
The Legislature has refused to approve the measure, making Massachusetts one
of only five states to be without Baby Safe Haven. The others states are
Alaska, Vermont, Nebraska and Hawaii. Morrissey said 97 percent of the nation's population is covered by a Baby
Safe Haven law. If Massachusetts were to join the ranks, two-thirds of the
remaining 3 percent would be included. Massachusetts would be the last of the heavily populated, industrialized
states to join the ranks of Baby Safe Haven. Morrissey said the groups and agencies charged with protecting child
welfare are the major opponents to Bay Safe Haven legislation. The Legislative Children's Caucus is opposed to the measure. "The highest concentration of anti-safe haven groups are associated with
this caucus," Morrissey said. "If they do not approve it, it does not get
passed." Morrissey added that because of the caucus, he does not expect
Massachusetts to approve a Baby Safe Haven law until after 2010. He added that Wilmington's Beacon Hill delegation supports the measure. The dim prospect for getting a statewide law passed led Morrissey and
others to adopt a new strategy. Approach the individual towns and ask them to
approve home-rule petitions. He said that once 100 to 200 towns petition the Legislature, asking for
Baby Safe Haven laws for their communities, the state may follow suit and
approve a measure. He compared it to the statewide smoking ban, which took effect
after a number of communities passed their statutes. Morrissey said the push in Massachusetts started in May 2000. On May 1 of
that year, a baby was left in the paring lot of St. Vincent's Hospital in
Worcester. It was found during a shift change, which possibly saved its life. Morrissey added that since May 2000, 10 babies have been abandoned in the
state - six have died. Massachusetts is the only state with multiple instances
of baby abandonment during the past few years that hasn't adopted a Baby Safe Haven law, he said.

"Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Z9TPb.21997$1e.12896@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... "BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040121175901.24620.00000481@mb-m13.aol.com... MASSACHUSETTS
http://www.townonline.com/wilmington/news/local_regional/tew_covwibabysafe 01212004.htm
Massachusetts would be the last of the heavily populated, industrialized states to join the ranks of Baby Safe Haven. Morrissey said the groups and agencies charged with protecting child welfare are the major opponents to Bay Safe Haven legislation. The Legislative Children's Caucus is opposed to the measure. "The highest concentration of anti-safe haven groups are associated with this caucus," Morrissey said. "If they do not approve it, it does not get passed."

OK, I'd like a straight, logical answer on this, Jean or Mike. Can you tell
us why child welfare agencies, prominent adoption agencies (let's start with
Holt and Spence-Chapin), the MA Legislative Children's Caucus, virtually
every adoption reform organization in the US--as well as adopted adults
by-in-large all oppose baby dump laws? It would seem to me that if these
laws were so beneficial to their trade and self-interest that they'd be part
of the dog and pony show.

I really want to hear your views on this--particularly why adopted adultsl
are opposed.

Marley

<<<I really want to hear your views on this--particularly why adopted adultsl
are opposed.

Marley>>>

Only 8 out of 150 reps in MA are against passage, as I have the letter that
they have circulated through the house. It's the same old news and untruths,
so easily found as false. Only two reps on the children's caucus are holding it
up, and they're slipping fast.
Our phone has rung many times this week for media coverage. A rock radio
station is getting involved, we turned down a western MA TV station due to time
and distance, a Beacon Hill publication doing a feature story, last week on a
Boston TV talk/political/news show did a feature that was very positive and
helped bring in more towns to add home rule petitions. Then the Boston Herald
editorial--- could the Globe be very close behind?
Then private citizens want to do everything they can to help based on the news,
and a few are adult adoptees who heavily dispute your claims.
The public perception is," why don't we have this yet, and get it done now."
Adult adoptees led by the City Councillor Tobin and his abandoned at birth and
adopted brother are leading the truth squads for passage in every municipality.

Your side has a state rep that pulled Howard Dean Iowa caucus screaming Deanie
fit in a discussion when we began to press that her city was getting ready to
pass their home rule petition against her.
And you keep naming the same tired old organizations that have already lost 97%
of the country, in 45 states. The law in Michigan was not repealed by its
sunset clause, and it's sure bet CA won't either.
Keep trying, and good luck.
Jean

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040123081027.13560.00000368@mb-m24.aol.com... <<<I really want to hear your views on this--particularly why adopted
adultsl are opposed. Marley>>> Only 8 out of 150 reps in MA are against passage, as I have the letter
that they have circulated through the house. It's the same old news and
untruths, so easily found as false. Only two reps on the children's caucus are
holding it up, and they're slipping fast. Our phone has rung many times this week for media coverage. A rock radio station is getting involved, we turned down a western MA TV station due to
time and distance, a Beacon Hill publication doing a feature story, last week
on a Boston TV talk/political/news show did a feature that was very positive
and helped bring in more towns to add home rule petitions. Then the Boston
Herald editorial--- could the Globe be very close behind? Then private citizens want to do everything they can to help based on the
news, and a few are adult adoptees who heavily dispute your claims. The public perception is," why don't we have this yet, and get it done
now." Adult adoptees led by the City Councillor Tobin and his abandoned at
birth and adopted brother are leading the truth squads for passage in every
municipality. Your side has a state rep that pulled Howard Dean Iowa caucus screaming
Deanie fit in a discussion when we began to press that her city was getting ready
to pass their home rule petition against her. And you keep naming the same tired old organizations that have already
lost 97% of the country, in 45 states. The law in Michigan was not repealed by its sunset clause, and it's sure bet CA won't either. Keep trying, and good luck. Jean

You have not answered the question, Jean. Why are adoption agencies, child
welfare agencies, and ADOPTED ADULTS opposed to Baby Moses? Do I have to
do a Joe
Soll on you?

Why is BN, the American Adoption Congress, Concerned United Birthmothers,
Ethica, the Green Ribbon Campaign, Canadian Council of Natural Mothers.
Prevent Child Abuse Virginia, Spence-Chapin, Bay Area Birthmothers,
Adoptees Caucus for Truth, Dads Against Divorce Discrimination, National
Congress of Fathers and Children, PACER and Holt International (among
others) opposed?

WHAT ARE THEIR MOTIVES?

Why would someone like Sally Howard, author of Finding Me in a Paper Bag,
the story of her abandonment of a newborn detest SH laws?

WHAT IS HER MOTIVE?

Your citation of Con. Tobin's brother is disingenuous at best. Some time
back when I asked you about the odd curiosity that Con. Tobin's brother has
never spoken publicly in favour of the laws, you said that the family
elected to have Con. Tobin speak for him. I still want to know why he can't
speak for himself. Is he not allowed to?

I await your answer,.

Marley