Is Adam P for real in the quote he makes at the end of this article?
It's also funny that every single Rep who is speaking out against the Baby
Safe Haven bill has the home rule petition going into their home towns or
cities, with the ones that passed by 90% majorities to unanimous. Isn't it also
an election year for every single one of them?
Jean
~~~~~~~~
There is No Shelter for "Safe Havens Bill"

By Adam D. Krauss - Beacon Hill Insider
January 27, 2004
Boston City Councillor John Tobin Jr. grew up with 40 children in his Mattapan
home, a result of his parents’ willingness to serve as caretakers for
children in need and no place to go.
Around 1978 the Tobins adopted Patrick, who two years earlier was found
abandoned under a motorcycle at a duplex in South Boston. “[My brother is]
one of the lucky ones,” Councillor Tobin told the Human Services and Elderly
Affairs Committee on January 14.
He was there in support of creating a “safe havens” law in Boston to allow
mothers, or a designated family member, to drop off unwanted newborns under
five days old to a designated place to prevent them from being abused or
killed. The legislation designates hospital emergency rooms, police stations
and 24-hour firehouses as places where a “lawful agent” can bring a baby
without disclosing their identity or having to fear being prosecuted.
The nation’s first safe havens law was enacted in 1999 under George W. Bush,
then Texas governor. Since then, 45 states - or 97 percent of the population,
according to one advocate - have followed suit
The issue has been gaining steam in Massachusetts since May 2000, when
statewide legislation was first filed. At least seven communities, including
Lexington and Fall River, have moved to adopt home-rule petitions for safe
havens. On February 12 the House will debate proposed legislation.
Boston filed a home-rule petition last April. “I’d like to see the city be
a part of this safe havens bill,” Mayor Thomas Menino said in a brief
interview last week. “It saves lives [and] gives parents an opportunity to
put their children in a safe place. It gives the child a future.”
As Tobin pointed out during the hearing, the city is “not in a race” with
the state to create the laws. Instead, Boston could serve as a pilot program
for the Commonwealth, he said. His eagerness to see the city make safe havens
a reality was met with scattered opposition at the hearing. However, streams
of support came from Rep. Antonio Cabral, co-chair of the committee.
In a follow-up interview, Cabral, D-New Bedford, said the committee is going to
hold the so-called Patrick Tobin bill until the House debate. He believes the
statewide legislation will succeed. If it doesn't, Cabral said he thinks the
committee will vote favorably on the city's bill. “I think it’s important
to have some law in place that does address this need.”
Not all of Cabral’s colleagues share his views. During the hearing, Rep.
Anne Paulsen, D-Belmont, said safe haven laws encourage women to have babies
but not care for them. In an interview she said the state does “not have an
acute problem of abandonment…I don't believe it's a serious public
emergency.”
Paulsen and seven other lawmakers sent out an email earlier this month urging
colleagues to oppose the legislation. The letter said safe havens “exist now
in Massachusetts in the form of hospitals and social service agencies where
women can drop their babies off without fear of prosecution if the baby is
unharmed.”
However, the main difference between what currently exists and what the Patrick
Tobin bill entails is that the person giving up the baby can remain anonymous,
aides to Rep. Paulsen have noted in discussions.
Tobin told the committee safe havens are a “tool to help save the lives of
two people. For social issues like this, you need to have a broader vision.”

But that wasn't enough to convince Rep. David Sullivan, D-Fall River, who said
he has “serious issues” with the bill. Safe haven laws are unfair because
children grow up without knowing their complete medical and hereditary
background, he said.
About his adopted brother, Tobin said, “We just know he's alive and
healthy…If the baby is dead, the genetic information is moot.”

"Safe Havens Bill" Gets No Shelter From Critical Legislators

The general mood from Beacon Hill lawmakers is that action should be taken
statewide. And, at the grassroots level, that's exactly what's been taking
place. Advocates like Michael and Jean Morrisey, of Lexington, have been
waging a relentless campaign to bring safe havens to Massachusetts since
November 2001, when they buried abandoned baby Rebecca Mary, who was found by
schoolchildren in St. Mary's Cemetery in Dorchester.
Michael Morrisey said since May 1, 2000, Boston has had three cases of deadly
abandonment, including Rebecca Mary. The other two occurred in East Boston.
Since then, he added, there have been 10 cases of newborn abandonment across
the state. Out of those 10, six died, he said.
“The stance that's taken in Massachusetts is, we're for the concept but we
think we can do better,” he said.
Morrisey said he expects around 100 communities to pass home-rule petitions by
the end of the year. “This is part of the history of safe haven laws,” he
said. Alabama and Pittsburgh are two states that saw support for safe havens
first swell at the town and city level before spreading statewide, he said.
In March 2003, the Journal of the American Medical Association released a study
by the office of the chief medical examiner at the University of North Carolina
that examined information gathered from 1985 through 2000 on homicides among
children under five days old. Led by Dr. Marcia Herman-Giddens, the report
found that an “estimated minimum of 85 newborn babies are killed or left to
die by one or both parents - usually their mother - in the United States each
year.” The average age of the women or girls identified was about 19 years
old, and more than half were 18 or older, according to the report, provided by
Tobin’s office.
Opponents of safe havens, particularly adoption advocates, say the laws only
inflame a problem that has not been properly diagnosed.
Around the same time as the UNC report, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption
Institute, an independent think tank on adoption-related issues in New York
City, released “Unintended Consequences: ‘Safe Haven’ Laws are Causing
Problems, Not Solving Them.”
During a January 22 interview, Adam Pertman, executive director of the
institute and author of “Adoption Nation,” said safe haven laws, “by
their very nature, circumvent the child welfare system.”
Addressing claims that saving a baby's life is more important than knowing the
genetic and hereditary information of a child who was abandoned, Pertman said
safe haven advocates “tend not to take into account that the child not only
needs to live but needs to have a life.”
“If those are our only choices - live or die - I’ll do anything to help the
baby live,” he said from his Boston office.
Pertman said Hawaii vetoed their safe havens law after reading the institute's
study. Responding to research that indicates babies have been saved in states
with the laws, he said, “There is literally no way to know if those babies
would have been unsafely abandoned. It principally seems to be reaching women
who otherwise would not have unsafely abandoned their babies…these laws are
begging for lawsuits.”
Morrisey doesn't agree. Safe haven laws are “the most proactive response to
newborn abandonment in history,” he said. “Fifty years…[will] probably
confirm that.” And Massachusetts can play a big role in the process, he
said. “We're more than two-thirds of the majority of the remaining three
percent of the country” that does not have safe havens, he said. “Once we
pass it, it goes to 99.9 percent or something. It gets real close.”
Safe havens are “not drop-off boxes,” Tobin said in an interview. If
funding is an issue, he said, “Put it in my hands.”

That's cute. The bill's been personalized now: The Patrick Tobin Bill.
And where is Patrick Tobin through all this? Why has his faimly elected, as
you claimed some months back, to speak for him. BTW, why didn't you appear
at the committee meeting the other day?

More importantly.You still haven't answered my question of the other day. I
repeat:

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?

Marley







"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040128122402.13560.00000521@mb-m24.aol.com... Is Adam P for real in the quote he makes at the end of this article? It's also funny that every single Rep who is speaking out against the
Baby Safe Haven bill has the home rule petition going into their home towns or cities, with the ones that passed by 90% majorities to unanimous. Isn't it
also an election year for every single one of them? Jean ~~~~~~~~ There is No Shelter for "Safe Havens Bill" By Adam D. Krauss - Beacon Hill Insider January 27, 2004 Boston City Councillor John Tobin Jr. grew up with 40 children in his
Mattapan home, a result of his parents' willingness to serve as caretakers for children in need and no place to go. Around 1978 the Tobins adopted Patrick, who two years earlier was found abandoned under a motorcycle at a duplex in South Boston. "[My brother
is] one of the lucky ones," Councillor Tobin told the Human Services and
Elderly Affairs Committee on January 14. He was there in support of creating a "safe havens" law in Boston to allow mothers, or a designated family member, to drop off unwanted newborns
under five days old to a designated place to prevent them from being abused or killed. The legislation designates hospital emergency rooms, police
stations and 24-hour firehouses as places where a "lawful agent" can bring a baby without disclosing their identity or having to fear being prosecuted. The nation's first safe havens law was enacted in 1999 under George W.
Bush, then Texas governor. Since then, 45 states - or 97 percent of the
population, according to one advocate - have followed suit The issue has been gaining steam in Massachusetts since May 2000, when statewide legislation was first filed. At least seven communities,
including Lexington and Fall River, have moved to adopt home-rule petitions for safe havens. On February 12 the House will debate proposed legislation. Boston filed a home-rule petition last April. "I'd like to see the city
be a part of this safe havens bill," Mayor Thomas Menino said in a brief interview last week. "It saves lives [and] gives parents an opportunity
to put their children in a safe place. It gives the child a future." As Tobin pointed out during the hearing, the city is "not in a race" with the state to create the laws. Instead, Boston could serve as a pilot
program for the Commonwealth, he said. His eagerness to see the city make safe
havens a reality was met with scattered opposition at the hearing. However,
streams of support came from Rep. Antonio Cabral, co-chair of the committee. In a follow-up interview, Cabral, D-New Bedford, said the committee is
going to hold the so-called Patrick Tobin bill until the House debate. He believes
the statewide legislation will succeed. If it doesn't, Cabral said he thinks
the committee will vote favorably on the city's bill. "I think it's important to have some law in place that does address this need." Not all of Cabral's colleagues share his views. During the hearing, Rep. Anne Paulsen, D-Belmont, said safe haven laws encourage women to have
babies but not care for them. In an interview she said the state does "not have
an acute problem of abandonment.I don't believe it's a serious public emergency." Paulsen and seven other lawmakers sent out an email earlier this month
urging colleagues to oppose the legislation. The letter said safe havens "exist
now in Massachusetts in the form of hospitals and social service agencies
where women can drop their babies off without fear of prosecution if the baby is unharmed." However, the main difference between what currently exists and what the
Patrick Tobin bill entails is that the person giving up the baby can remain
anonymous, aides to Rep. Paulsen have noted in discussions. Tobin told the committee safe havens are a "tool to help save the lives of two people. For social issues like this, you need to have a broader
vision." But that wasn't enough to convince Rep. David Sullivan, D-Fall River, who
said he has "serious issues" with the bill. Safe haven laws are unfair because children grow up without knowing their complete medical and hereditary background, he said. About his adopted brother, Tobin said, "We just know he's alive and healthy.If the baby is dead, the genetic information is moot." "Safe Havens Bill" Gets No Shelter From Critical Legislators The general mood from Beacon Hill lawmakers is that action should be taken statewide. And, at the grassroots level, that's exactly what's been
taking place. Advocates like Michael and Jean Morrisey, of Lexington, have been waging a relentless campaign to bring safe havens to Massachusetts since November 2001, when they buried abandoned baby Rebecca Mary, who was found
by schoolchildren in St. Mary's Cemetery in Dorchester. Michael Morrisey said since May 1, 2000, Boston has had three cases of
deadly abandonment, including Rebecca Mary. The other two occurred in East
Boston. Since then, he added, there have been 10 cases of newborn abandonment
across the state. Out of those 10, six died, he said. "The stance that's taken in Massachusetts is, we're for the concept but we think we can do better," he said. Morrisey said he expects around 100 communities to pass home-rule
petitions by the end of the year. "This is part of the history of safe haven laws," he said. Alabama and Pittsburgh are two states that saw support for safe
havens first swell at the town and city level before spreading statewide, he
said. In March 2003, the Journal of the American Medical Association released a
study by the office of the chief medical examiner at the University of North
Carolina that examined information gathered from 1985 through 2000 on homicides
among children under five days old. Led by Dr. Marcia Herman-Giddens, the
report found that an "estimated minimum of 85 newborn babies are killed or left
to die by one or both parents - usually their mother - in the United States
each year." The average age of the women or girls identified was about 19
years old, and more than half were 18 or older, according to the report,
provided by Tobin's office. Opponents of safe havens, particularly adoption advocates, say the laws
only inflame a problem that has not been properly diagnosed. Around the same time as the UNC report, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, an independent think tank on adoption-related issues in New
York City, released "Unintended Consequences: 'Safe Haven' Laws are Causing Problems, Not Solving Them." During a January 22 interview, Adam Pertman, executive director of the institute and author of "Adoption Nation," said safe haven laws, "by their very nature, circumvent the child welfare system." Addressing claims that saving a baby's life is more important than knowing
the genetic and hereditary information of a child who was abandoned, Pertman
said safe haven advocates "tend not to take into account that the child not
only needs to live but needs to have a life." "If those are our only choices - live or die - I'll do anything to help
the baby live," he said from his Boston office. Pertman said Hawaii vetoed their safe havens law after reading the
institute's study. Responding to research that indicates babies have been saved in
states with the laws, he said, "There is literally no way to know if those babies would have been unsafely abandoned. It principally seems to be reaching
women who otherwise would not have unsafely abandoned their babies.these laws
are begging for lawsuits." Morrisey doesn't agree. Safe haven laws are "the most proactive response
to newborn abandonment in history," he said. "Fifty years.[will] probably confirm that." And Massachusetts can play a big role in the process, he said. "We're more than two-thirds of the majority of the remaining three percent of the country" that does not have safe havens, he said. "Once we pass it, it goes to 99.9 percent or something. It gets real close." Safe havens are "not drop-off boxes," Tobin said in an interview. If funding is an issue, he said, "Put it in my hands."

>Subject: Re: MA - There is No Shelter for "Safe Havens BillFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 1/28/2004 2:13 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <UwSRb.128569$6y6.2512392@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>That's cute. The bill's been personalized now: The Patrick Tobin Bill.And where is Patrick Tobin through all this? Why has his faimly elected, asyou claimed some months back, to speak for him. BTW, why didn't you appearat the committee meeting the other day?More importantly.You still haven't answered my question of the other day. Irepeat:You have not answered the question, Jean. Why are adoption agencies, childwelfare agencies, and ADOPTED ADULTS opposed to Baby Moses? Do I have todo 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, NationalCongress of Fathers and Children, PACER and Holt International (amongothers) opposed?

Don't quote me but from what I hear, I think you can add AAAA to your list
Marley.

Marley, I have a strange question, but maybe you can answer it.
Every time I read about the Baby Safe Haven debate, they say that anyone
who leaves a baby with a Safe Have place that they won't be prosecuted.
Well, in some young woman's mind they might take that to thinking they
could be prosecuted simply by placing the baby up for adoption. Why
won't the Baby Safe Haven's people attempt to tell and advertize at the
same time that they place their stickers that there are plenty of things
in place so a young woman would know that there are other options
besides abandonment and won't be prosecuted if they do go the traditonal
route such as adoption? IMHO a mother who would leave a baby in a
dumpster, under a motorcycle, in freezing weather is not going to be the
ones who are using the Baby Safe Haven's. They are not thinking
correctly at all! OK, like I said it is a strange question and I hope
you can answer it.
jmf

"Chosenchildinc1" <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040128131158.22695.00001031@mb-m18.aol.com...Subject: Re: MA - There is No Shelter for "Safe Havens BillFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 1/28/2004 2:13 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <UwSRb.128569$6y6.2512392@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>That's cute. The bill's been personalized now: The Patrick Tobin Bill.And where is Patrick Tobin through all this? Why has his faimly elected,
asyou claimed some months back, to speak for him. BTW, why didn't you
appearat the committee meeting the other day?More importantly.You still haven't answered my question of the other day.
Irepeat:You have not answered the question, Jean. Why are adoption agencies,
childwelfare agencies, and ADOPTED ADULTS opposed to Baby Moses? Do I have
todo 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, NationalCongress of Fathers and Children, PACER and Holt International (amongothers) opposed? Don't quote me but from what I hear, I think you can add AAAA to your list Marley.

I know Howard certainly is.

Marley

<<<<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?>>>

They have their small groups and reasons for not supporting Baby Safe Haven
laws.
You keep naming the same 15 small groups again and again. How about the HHS
commissioners of 45 states, the first lady of New Jersey who will be promoting
the truths of their law in their campaign, and just in MA we have had over a
dozen Boards of Selectmen who all unanimously support Baby Safe Havens along
with all of their police and fire departments. How about the Legislative
Women's Caucus in MA that supports passage. And even adult adoptees who have
written to the Speaker and commented on how your groups use ugly terms for the
laws such as "baby dump laws." They find that very insulting.

<<<BTW, why didn't you appear
at the committee meeting the other day?>>>

Other then schedule conflicts with other hearings in towns, we felt very
conformable with Councillor Tobin handling the committee hearing.

We hear that the letter mentioned in the article was full of
misrepresentations. One rep had made calls across the country saying he
favored Baby Safe Haven laws?
What's the deal with him, and why can't he be honest?

<<<<That's cute. The bill's been personalized now: The Patrick Tobin Bill.>>

Boston's home rule petition has always been the Patrick Tobin bill, and the
Baby Rebecca Mary bill. Patrick was lucky to have been found in time, Rebecca
Mary wasn't found in time.
It's as if Adam P is saying "the child not only needs to live but needs to have
a life.”
Patrick has both, Rebecca Mary has neither? Patrick has a life of quality, so
what is Mr. P implying?

Jean

How about the HHS
commissioners of 45 states, the first lady of New Jersey who will be promoting
the truths of their law in their campaign, and just in MA we have had over a
dozen Boards of Selectmen who all unanimously support Baby Safe Havens along
with all of their police and fire departments. How about the Legislative
Women's Caucus in MA that supports passage. And even adult adoptees who have
written to the Speaker and commented on how your groups use ugly terms for the
laws such as "baby dump laws." They find that very insulting.
============

I wonder if the 42 year old woman in NJ that was attempting to flush her baby
down the toilet before her boyfriend came back from the store was oblivious to
"safe haven" opportunities or never heard of adoption?

I wonder if she left her baby at a fire station anonymously, how the father
might feel about not having a say in what happened to his child, or having the
chance to raise if he chose to?

Women that will kill their babies will kill them. That's the sad and cold
truth. Whether it's in a toilet or in a dumpster. There's a screw loose and
abortion, adoption, and safe havens won't fix it. Those babies will still die.

The choice between going through an agency to place your baby or just dropping
him off in the middle of the night someplace secretly and walking away, well
that's where those safe haven/baby dump opportunities come into play. It
doesn't save the child's life -- it just allows for a child to be adopted with
no history, no ties, and no way of ever finding them. And for some adoptive
parents, this is just peachy. And for some birthmothers, this is just peachy
too.

IMO, adoptees who support these bills are seeing it more from the perspective
of "better to be adopted in a safe haven than to be dumped in a trashcan." But
I think that's a flawed conclusion -- because the baby in the trashcan, will
still be the baby in the trashcan.

Ok, maybe Marley could not answer my question, so I will ask you. And
believe me, I am not for any baby suffering and dying at all! But, I
would like to know if the people (and I think that you are one of them)
who are pushing the Baby Safe Havens would or could answer my question.
Which is this; why don't you put on your stickers that there are other
options besides abandoning your child without being prosecuted such as
adoption? In my ignorance about these things I really would like to
know. Every time I read about this, it says that someone can abandon
their baby without fear of prosecution. And I remember being a teenager
and might have thought at the time that if I read this on some bathroom
wall somewhere that I might have been prosecuted if I had actually gone
the traditional route of adoption. I am speaking metaphorically here as
this did not happen in my life. Jean, I have absolutely nothing to do
with politics except for voting. I really don't think that most people
who abandon their babies are thinking clearly.
jmf

curiousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net (guess who) ASKS

"I am not for any baby suffering and dying at all! But, I
would like to know if the people (and I think that you are one of them)
who are pushing the Baby Safe Havens would or could answer my question.
Which is this; why don't you put on your stickers that there are other
options besides abandoning your child without being prosecuted such as
adoption?"

Dear Guess,
There is a vast middle ground out there and one side seems to think that all
Baby Safe Haven advocates want is to "steal" babies from adoption
organizations, that women will only kill their babies and not bring them safely
to a safe haven for a safe surrendering without fear of prosecution, and that
the promotion of Baby Safe Haven laws is only telling women to ONLY use the
laws and not traditional adoption methods.
As you may have guessed all of the above are far to the opposition of Baby Safe
Haven laws side of the ledger.
History has now shown what the reality is.
Yes, the stickers don't tell of traditional adoption methods. There are
hundreds more adoption agencies, attorneys, pregnancy counseling agencies then
there are Baby Safe Haven groups or state agencies directing information
campaigns. Why haven't you asked the too many to count pregnancy counseling
agencies and adoption groups that support Baby Safe Havens to make sure they
add info on Baby Safe Haven laws in their stickers, subway ads and the like?
It's called a single method advertisement or promotion so that the reader will
get a clear single message.
Second. Baby Safe Haven hotlines around the country fielding calls from women
in crisis always first want the woman to get proper care and deliver in a
hospital, then use traditional adoption. In New York there were 17 such cases
in 2002, and a dozen babies safely surrendered at safe havens. Every crisis is
different.
THIRD, and most important. Why doesn't the most militant opposition groups to
Baby Safe Haven laws take up the vast middle ground and do the honorable thing.
Baby Safe Haven laws have proven by history to have seen well over 200 newborns
safely surrendered at police stations, fire houses, hospitals and other
designated locations in the last almost 5 years.
Instead of trying to fight off the laws, or roll them back which will never
happen, these groups can start to send out a parallel message to women who may
utilize Baby Safe Haven laws, or who have already surrendered babies at them.
Your message should be just what you have asked. "Please consider Adoption
First, but don't harm your child. Safe Havens is only a last resort."
Then for the 200+ newborns safely surrendered: "As adoptees we know how
important a family link and medical history can be, please help your baby and
give them these important ties to their heritage. You're immune from
prosecution so contact *whomever you designate*."
I'll bet you could get some very famous adoptees to bring that message forward,
but Ms. Greiner will continue to fight you on this, continue her radical
pursuits that alienate well over 95+% of the people she promotes to, and will
never take an honest path to help future adoptees that may only be alive due to
the 45 Baby Safe Haven laws that have passed in the US.
It just goes to show that if you do the right things, communicate in a
palatable fashion, more and more people will join you in your advocacy.
Thank you for your very insightful questions and we hope to join you in that
vast middle ground sometime soon.
Mike
"Just an old newspaper man."

Gosh, if you knew anything about adoption, it's procedures and consequences
you'd know exactly what Adam is talking about. SH are profoundly
anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-adoption. At core, they are devised as a
means to circumvent best standards practice, imbue a sense of shame in girls
and women, create a parrallel child welfare system, deny pesky fathers
theirei rights, and let lawmakers feel they are doing something "good"
without actually doing anything, thus, hoodwinking most of the people who
actually think they are useful. They are a reaction to open records, and
open adoption. My late mentor admitted this as has Tom Atwood.

As for lawsuits, let's try on a couple of these scenarios:

Parents learn that a SH "advocate" has been treating their minor daughter,
advising her on how to abandon her baby. Say this person actually delivers
the baby inside their home and then removes the baby for placement , as has
been self-reported. Do the parents have a case?

Let's make this easier. Say, a school counselor advises a student on how to
abandon her baby through a SH. Say this student gives secret birth, has
complications, maybe even dies. Do the parents have case?

How about fathers? How can SH advocates claim that the father can receive
notice while at the same time telling the mother than nobody has to know?
Fathers do have rights, no matter how painful that prospect may be to some
people. And let's not forget the diligent search clause in state and
federal law which mandates a search. Does a SH mother have a case?

Finally, Conc. Tobin's remark that SH are not drop-off boxes. Apparently he
doesn't know about the drop-off boxes in Pomona and Phoenix. Or that these
boxes are illegal under both states' SH laws.

Marley




"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040128122402.13560.00000521@mb-m24.aol.com... Is Adam P for real in the quote he makes at the end of this article? It's also funny that every single Rep who is speaking out against the
Baby Safe Haven bill has the home rule petition going into their home towns or cities, with the ones that passed by 90% majorities to unanimous. Isn't it
also an election year for every single one of them? Jean ~~~~~~~~ There is No Shelter for "Safe Havens Bill" By Adam D. Krauss - Beacon Hill Insider January 27, 2004 Boston City Councillor John Tobin Jr. grew up with 40 children in his
Mattapan home, a result of his parents' willingness to serve as caretakers for children in need and no place to go. Around 1978 the Tobins adopted Patrick, who two years earlier was found abandoned under a motorcycle at a duplex in South Boston. "[My brother
is] one of the lucky ones," Councillor Tobin told the Human Services and
Elderly Affairs Committee on January 14. He was there in support of creating a "safe havens" law in Boston to allow mothers, or a designated family member, to drop off unwanted newborns
under five days old to a designated place to prevent them from being abused or killed. The legislation designates hospital emergency rooms, police
stations and 24-hour firehouses as places where a "lawful agent" can bring a baby without disclosing their identity or having to fear being prosecuted. The nation's first safe havens law was enacted in 1999 under George W.
Bush, then Texas governor. Since then, 45 states - or 97 percent of the
population, according to one advocate - have followed suit The issue has been gaining steam in Massachusetts since May 2000, when statewide legislation was first filed. At least seven communities,
including Lexington and Fall River, have moved to adopt home-rule petitions for safe havens. On February 12 the House will debate proposed legislation. Boston filed a home-rule petition last April. "I'd like to see the city
be a part of this safe havens bill," Mayor Thomas Menino said in a brief interview last week. "It saves lives [and] gives parents an opportunity
to put their children in a safe place. It gives the child a future." As Tobin pointed out during the hearing, the city is "not in a race" with the state to create the laws. Instead, Boston could serve as a pilot
program for the Commonwealth, he said. His eagerness to see the city make safe
havens a reality was met with scattered opposition at the hearing. However,
streams of support came from Rep. Antonio Cabral, co-chair of the committee. In a follow-up interview, Cabral, D-New Bedford, said the committee is
going to hold the so-called Patrick Tobin bill until the House debate. He believes
the statewide legislation will succeed. If it doesn't, Cabral said he thinks
the committee will vote favorably on the city's bill. "I think it's important to have some law in place that does address this need." Not all of Cabral's colleagues share his views. During the hearing, Rep. Anne Paulsen, D-Belmont, said safe haven laws encourage women to have
babies but not care for them. In an interview she said the state does "not have
an acute problem of abandonment.I don't believe it's a serious public emergency." Paulsen and seven other lawmakers sent out an email earlier this month
urging colleagues to oppose the legislation. The letter said safe havens "exist
now in Massachusetts in the form of hospitals and social service agencies
where women can drop their babies off without fear of prosecution if the baby is unharmed." However, the main difference between what currently exists and what the
Patrick Tobin bill entails is that the person giving up the baby can remain
anonymous, aides to Rep. Paulsen have noted in discussions. Tobin told the committee safe havens are a "tool to help save the lives of two people. For social issues like this, you need to have a broader
vision." But that wasn't enough to convince Rep. David Sullivan, D-Fall River, who
said he has "serious issues" with the bill. Safe haven laws are unfair because children grow up without knowing their complete medical and hereditary background, he said. About his adopted brother, Tobin said, "We just know he's alive and healthy.If the baby is dead, the genetic information is moot." "Safe Havens Bill" Gets No Shelter From Critical Legislators The general mood from Beacon Hill lawmakers is that action should be taken statewide. And, at the grassroots level, that's exactly what's been
taking place. Advocates like Michael and Jean Morrisey, of Lexington, have been waging a relentless campaign to bring safe havens to Massachusetts since November 2001, when they buried abandoned baby Rebecca Mary, who was found
by schoolchildren in St. Mary's Cemetery in Dorchester. Michael Morrisey said since May 1, 2000, Boston has had three cases of
deadly abandonment, including Rebecca Mary. The other two occurred in East
Boston. Since then, he added, there have been 10 cases of newborn abandonment
across the state. Out of those 10, six died, he said. "The stance that's taken in Massachusetts is, we're for the concept but we think we can do better," he said. Morrisey said he expects around 100 communities to pass home-rule
petitions by the end of the year. "This is part of the history of safe haven laws," he said. Alabama and Pittsburgh are two states that saw support for safe
havens first swell at the town and city level before spreading statewide, he
said. In March 2003, the Journal of the American Medical Association released a
study by the office of the chief medical examiner at the University of North
Carolina that examined information gathered from 1985 through 2000 on homicides
among children under five days old. Led by Dr. Marcia Herman-Giddens, the
report found that an "estimated minimum of 85 newborn babies are killed or left
to die by one or both parents - usually their mother - in the United States
each year." The average age of the women or girls identified was about 19
years old, and more than half were 18 or older, according to the report,
provided by Tobin's office. Opponents of safe havens, particularly adoption advocates, say the laws
only inflame a problem that has not been properly diagnosed. Around the same time as the UNC report, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, an independent think tank on adoption-related issues in New
York City, released "Unintended Consequences: 'Safe Haven' Laws are Causing Problems, Not Solving Them." During a January 22 interview, Adam Pertman, executive director of the institute and author of "Adoption Nation," said safe haven laws, "by their very nature, circumvent the child welfare system." Addressing claims that saving a baby's life is more important than knowing
the genetic and hereditary information of a child who was abandoned, Pertman
said safe haven advocates "tend not to take into account that the child not
only needs to live but needs to have a life." "If those are our only choices - live or die - I'll do anything to help
the baby live," he said from his Boston office. Pertman said Hawaii vetoed their safe havens law after reading the
institute's study. Responding to research that indicates babies have been saved in
states with the laws, he said, "There is literally no way to know if those babies would have been unsafely abandoned. It principally seems to be reaching
women who otherwise would not have unsafely abandoned their babies.these laws
are begging for lawsuits." Morrisey doesn't agree. Safe haven laws are "the most proactive response
to newborn abandonment in history," he said. "Fifty years.[will] probably confirm that." And Massachusetts can play a big role in the process, he said. "We're more than two-thirds of the majority of the remaining three percent of the country" that does not have safe havens, he said. "Once we pass it, it goes to 99.9 percent or something. It gets real close." Safe havens are "not drop-off boxes," Tobin said in an interview. If funding is an issue, he said, "Put it in my hands."

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040128145607.21837.00001040@mb-m14.aol.com... <<<<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?>>> They have their small groups and reasons for not supporting Baby Safe
Haven laws.

These are not small groups (have you no idea who Holt International is?) nd
you have still not answered the question What could be our possible
motives?
You keep naming the same 15 small groups again and again. How about the
HHS commissioners of 45 states, the first lady of New Jersey who will be
promoting the truths of their law in their campaign, and just in MA we have had over
a dozen Boards of Selectmen who all unanimously support Baby Safe Havens
along with all of their police and fire departments. How about the Legislative Women's Caucus in MA that supports passage. And even adult adoptees who
have written to the Speaker and commented on how your groups use ugly terms for
the laws such as "baby dump laws." They find that very insulting.

Abandoning a baby is an ugly event. While it is ugly enough when done
illegally, it is even uglier when done under the guise of state protection.
We call it what it is.

You know, a year ago, I thought your bill was sailing through, and didn't
even bother about it. I only found out a few weeks later that it had been
gutted, by some very clever politicians. Your appearance on alt.adoption in
fact, is the reason why we have gotten involved. Your braggadocio, your
obsession which has even turned off some of your supporters in Mass. is what
got us going. We do not call Beacon Hill 3 times a day to demand Members
support us. Members do not hide in their offices to avoid us. We do not
resort to threats, name calling, and harassment. All of these tactics have
been reported to me by Members of the Great Court as being your MO. We
have a 6-year legacy of integrity and honesty in openness in adoption. We
have no hidden agenda. I've been approached by several Members for
information and documentation--provable information and documentation. As
an historian, scholar and researcher, that's my job. I don't make up stats,
I don't make up history. There is power in truth. <<<BTW, why didn't you appear at the committee meeting the other day?>>> Other then schedule conflicts with other hearings in towns, we felt very conformable with Councillor Tobin handling the committee hearing.

I was told it was very calm and civil--apparently unlike some meetings. We hear that the letter mentioned in the article was full of misrepresentations. One rep had made calls across the country saying he favored Baby Safe Haven laws? What's the deal with him, and why can't he be honest?

I've not seen the letter and I have no idea what you're talking about. <<<<That's cute. The bill's been personalized now: The Patrick Tobin
Bill.>> Boston's home rule petition has always been the Patrick Tobin bill, and
the Baby Rebecca Mary bill. Patrick was lucky to have been found in time,
Rebecca Mary wasn't found in time. It's as if Adam P is saying "the child not only needs to live but needs to
have a life." Patrick has both, Rebecca Mary has neither? Patrick has a life of
quality, so what is Mr. P implying? Jean

Then why isn'ts he speaking publicly. Why is is brother doing his talking
for him?

Marley

"guess who" <curiousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3215-401823DE-89@storefull-3331.bay.webtv.net... Ok, maybe Marley could not answer my question, so I will ask you. And believe me, I am not for any baby suffering and dying at all! But, I would like to know if the people (and I think that you are one of them) who are pushing the Baby Safe Havens would or could answer my question. Which is this; why don't you put on your stickers that there are other options besides abandoning your child without being prosecuted such as adoption? In my ignorance about these things I really would like to know. Every time I read about this, it says that someone can abandon their baby without fear of prosecution. And I remember being a teenager and might have thought at the time that if I read this on some bathroom wall somewhere that I might have been prosecuted if I had actually gone the traditional route of adoption. I am speaking metaphorically here as this did not happen in my life. Jean, I have absolutely nothing to do with politics except for voting. I really don't think that most people who abandon their babies are thinking clearly. jmf

The law were designed to fail. They do not address the real issues in
newborn abandonment: fear, shame, denial, substance abuse, untreated mental
illness, domestic violence, and poverty. In fact, very little study has
been made on the whole in the US on women who actually abandon. Moreover,
privileged advocates, do not comprehend the irrationality of the act, and
therefore seek a rational solution. I've never heard an explanation on why
they think, for instance, that a woman who has denied her pregnancy for 9
months, even to the extent that her body has shut down and she shows no
pregnancy symptoms, is going to jump in a car and take the sudden baby to
the police, firefighters or a hospital. It just doesn't happen. The baby,
instead is a thing that needs to be gotten rid of. If you're really
interested in the subject I suggest you read the work of Dr. Margaret
Spinelli or Michelle Oberman and Cheryl Meyers who have written extensively
on the topic.

In addition to the faulty thinking of advocates, there is absolutely no
evidence that newborn abandonment is on the upswing, though from the way
they talk there's an epidemic. Advocates sometimes fold in boarder baby
statistics (those are babies that are born and left in hospitals by parents)
in with dangerous abandonment numbers to push their agenda. Obviously, if
30,000 newborns a year were being dumped on the highways, byways, trashbins
and backyards of America, we'd hear about it.

I have no idea why advocates believe that women who suffer from these
disabilities would use a SH. Instead we see that SH is being used as an
easy "adoption plan," The late Dr. Pierce coined the term
"non-bureaucratic placement" right here on alt.adoption. That is, adoption
is an onerous process with all that mandated counseling and paperwork. It's
just too much for some people. Granted, the number who can't deal with
these kinds of intellectual hardships are small, but for them there must be
something easier. So we set up a parallel simplified system for them.
Drive-by relinquishments. Non-bureaucratic placement.

SH are designed on the Built-in-and-they-will-come philosophy. What we are
beginning to see is women who are already in adoption plans using SH and
women who were never any threat to their newborns, using SH as an easy
solution. I know of one alleged case (and I'm sure there are more) where
a woman has threatened to SH her (then unborn ) baby unless the father
agrees to terminate his rights after he announced his intention to seek
custody. Add to this the express intent of dump founders to use SH as a
reaction and defense against open records (and open adoption) and you get a
clearer picture of what's going on. In Texas, in fact, adoption agencies
are drop-off points. BTW, in some states, such as Florida, SH babies are
disappeared right into private adoption agencies.

As for pushing a legitimate adoption agenda, the propaganda is that of the
anti-aborts: dead baby bad--live baby good. There is no middle ground.
They tend to see only black and white, and if a mother uses a SH, then she
must be a potential baby killer. They do not accept that women who are
using SH as an expedient, have other options. They do little if anything (a
couple advocates not withstanding) to assist women to keep their babies or
where to get help.. Relinquishment and adoption, if one chooses to carry to
term, should not be the priority unless the woman clearly wants that, and
then it should be promoted in best practice terms.

I suspect that many advocates of SH do not care much about women in
unattended, multi-vectored pregnancies. In going through the websites of
various SH advocacy organizations, and even I was shocked to see how little
women count. It's all about "saving the baby" and little or nothing about
"saving the mother." If one is inclined to aesthetics you see pictures of
women whose faces are veiled, held low, or even cut from the picture itself
with perhaps a chin or hanging hair showed. (The iconography of SH is a
project in itself.) She's a specter, invisible, doesn't count except as an
incubator. Fathers do not exist at all (with the exception of 1 poster on
the AMT site). "Roving inseminators" don't deserve rights. Husbands of
women who hide pregnancies and SH don't deserve rights. And if you don't
think that happens, think again! Putative fathers registries are useless in
these cases.

Marley

"DTVpro" <dtvpro@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040128190721.13140.00000556@mb-m20.aol.com... curiousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net (guess who) ASKS "I am not for any baby suffering and dying at all! But, I would like to know if the people (and I think that you are one of them) who are pushing the Baby Safe Havens would or could answer my question. Which is this; why don't you put on your stickers that there are other options besides abandoning your child without being prosecuted such as adoption?"

Glad to see you back, Mike Dear Guess, There is a vast middle ground out there and one side seems to think that
all Baby Safe Haven advocates want is to "steal" babies from adoption organizations,

Who in the world says that? That's a new one on me.

that women will only kill their babies and not bring them safely to a safe haven for a safe surrendering without fear of prosecution,


That's the general rhetoric. Ive' seen a lot of it lately coming out of
Minnesota where the dumpers can't understand why nobody is using the law.
How can you deny it? If I had the time I could probably type out 100
advocate quotes that say just that.

and that the promotion of Baby Safe Haven laws is only telling women to ONLY use
the laws and not traditional adoption methods.

That's what my mentor claimed. Traditional adoption methods were just too
difficult We need non-bureaucrataic placement for the paper-work impaired.


As you may have guessed all of the above are far to the opposition of Baby
Safe Haven laws side of the ledger. History has now shown what the reality is. Yes, the stickers don't tell of traditional adoption methods. There are hundreds more adoption agencies, attorneys, pregnancy counseling agencies
then there are Baby Safe Haven groups or state agencies directing information campaigns. Why haven't you asked the too many to count pregnancy
counseling agencies and adoption groups that support Baby Safe Havens to make sure
they add info on Baby Safe Haven laws in their stickers, subway ads and the
like? It's called a single method advertisement or promotion so that the reader
will get a clear single message.

What "adoption groups" promote SH, Mike? Can you point to one adoption
reform group in the US that supports them?
Second. Baby Safe Haven hotlines around the country fielding calls from
women in crisis always first want the woman to get proper care and deliver in a hospital, then use traditional adoption. In New York there were 17 such
cases in 2002, and a dozen babies safely surrendered at safe havens. Every
crisis is different. THIRD, and most important. Why doesn't the most militant opposition
groups to Baby Safe Haven laws take up the vast middle ground and do the honorable
thing.

We do. We say no to anti-family public policy.

Baby Safe Haven laws have proven by history to have seen well over 200
newborns safely surrendered at police stations, fire houses, hospitals and other designated locations in the last almost 5 years.

And how many of them were in danger death?

Instead of trying to fight off the laws, or roll them back which will
never happen, these groups can start to send out a parallel message to women who
may utilize Baby Safe Haven laws, or who have already surrendered babies at
them. Your message should be just what you have asked. "Please consider
Adoption First, but don't harm your child. Safe Havens is only a last resort."

We do that, except we say that SH is a no resort. We also suggest that
women might actually want to keep their babies. Do you have any knowledge of
the history of adoption in the US, the Culture of Shame, the coercion of
bmothers; the destruction of fatherhood, the vast sums of money to be made
by lawyers, facilitators, and private and public agencies, the sealing of
records all to serve the self-interests of adoption industrialists and
moralists. That any advocate would suggest that baby abandonment is the
"saving grace" of women in multi-vectored pregnancies is ludicrous and
insulting to mothers and fathers. Have you not listened to the voices of
nmothers here on at.adoption who 30 yeas ago were sold a bill of goods about
how they could just get rid of their problem and get on with their
lives--the same bill of goods being sold to women today, only in a more
insidious manner?

Babies are not made through immaculate conception. Do you not listen to the
voices of nfathers who have traditionally been shut out of all decision
making.

Then for the 200+ newborns safely surrendered: "As adoptees we know how important a family link and medical history can be, please help your baby
and give them these important ties to their heritage. You're immune from prosecution so contact *whomever you designate*."

What does "contact whomever you designate mean? As adoptees we already
know how important a family link and medical history can be--and we are not
*allowed* to have it due to sealed records. SH are a perpetuation and an
extreme response to open records. Your bosses have said that publicly.
Why would SH be any different? Just how is that information supposed to be
gathered under no shame, no blame, no name, when in some states SH receivers
aren't even allowed to ask questions--or babies can be tossed into a night
depository? Please be sure to tell the X's about this access. I'm sure
they'll be glad to know they can have that "link." This is nothing but pure
raw state power against identify rights. In a country where the state can
access your medical records, your credit rating, the library books you read,
who you talk to on the phone, the idea that one is not allowed to know their
parents and heritage is indeed frightening.

BTW, have you forgotten that by state and federal law a diligent search
must be made for parents who abandon via in order to seek genetic and family
histories as well as possible kinship placement? If a father is found,
anon. goes right out the window for those "desperate mothers" you try to
hard to hide.


I'll bet you could get some very famous adoptees to bring that message
forward, but Ms. Greiner will continue to fight you on this, continue her radical pursuits that alienate well over 95+% of the people she promotes to, and
will never take an honest path to help future adoptees that may only be alive
due to the 45 Baby Safe Haven laws that have passed in the US.

You and Jean are the only ones I've alienated. I get along with everybody.
You'd be surpirsed at the people I can just pick up the phone and talk to.

It just goes to show that if you do the right things, communicate in a palatable fashion, more and more people will join you in your advocacy

That must be why you're still trying to pass your law. .

Thank you for your very insightful questions and we hope to join you in
that vast middle ground sometime soon. Mike "Just an old newspaper man."

Like you are, obviously. Mike Mike Mike. You need to get out more. Have
you tried Argentina?

Marley

Thank you, Marley for attempting to answer what I was asking about. Just
so you know, I truly do admire you for what you are fighting for. At
least you do not seem to have any hidden agendas. Everyone who reads
your posts can tell that. And I may just have to read up on those
authors you have mentioned.


jmf








Re: MA - There is No Shelter for "Safe Havens Bill/ Jean

Group: alt.adoption Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2004, 5:55am (CST+6) From:
maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net (Marley*Greiner)
"guess who" <curiousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3215-401823DE-89@storefull-3331.bay.webtv.net...
Ok, maybe Marley could not answer my question, so I will ask you. And
believe me, I am not for any baby suffering and dying at all! But, I
would like to know if the people (and I think that you are one of them)
who are pushing the Baby Safe Havens would or could answer my question.
Which is this; why don't you put on your stickers that there are other
options besides abandoning your child without being prosecuted such as
adoption? In my ignorance about these things I really would like to
know. Every time I read about this, it says that someone can abandon
their baby without fear of prosecution. And I remember being a teenager
and might have thought at the time that if I read this on some bathroom
wall somewhere that I might have been prosecuted if I had actually gone
the traditional route of adoption. I am speaking metaphorically here as
this did not happen in my life. Jean, I have absolutely nothing to do
with politics except for voting. I really don't think that most people
who abandon their babies are thinking clearly.
************************************************** ****************************jmf
The law were designed to fail. They do not address the real issues in
newborn abandonment: fear, shame, denial, substance abuse, untreated
mental illness, domestic violence, and poverty. In fact, very little
study has been made on the whole in the US on women who actually
abandon. Moreover, privileged advocates, do not comprehend the
irrationality of the act, and therefore seek a rational solution. I've
never heard an explanation on why they think, for instance, that a woman
who has denied her pregnancy for 9 months, even to the extent that her
body has shut down and she shows no pregnancy symptoms, is going to jump
in a car and take the sudden baby to the police, firefighters or a
hospital. It just doesn't happen. The baby, instead is a thing that
needs to be gotten rid of. If you're really interested in the subject I
suggest you read the work of Dr. Margaret Spinelli or Michelle Oberman
and Cheryl Meyers who have written extensively on the topic.
In addition to the faulty thinking of advocates, there is absolutely no
evidence that newborn abandonment is on the upswing, though from the way
they talk there's an epidemic. Advocates sometimes fold in boarder baby
statistics (those are babies that are born and left in hospitals by
parents) in with dangerous abandonment numbers to push their agenda.
Obviously, if 30,000 newborns a year were being dumped on the highways,
byways, trashbins and backyards of America, we'd hear about it.
**I have no idea why advocates believe that women who suffer from
these disabilities would use a SH. Instead we see that SH is being used
as an easy "adoption plan," * The late Dr. Pierce coined the term
"non-bureaucratic placement" right here on alt.adoption. That is,
adoption is an onerous process with all that mandated counseling and
paperwork. It's just too much for some people. Granted, the number who
can't deal with these kinds of intellectual hardships are small, but for
them there must be something easier. So we set up a parallel simplified
system for them. Drive-by relinquishments. Non-bureaucratic placement.
SH are designed on the Built-in-and-they-will-come philosophy. What we
are beginning to see is women who are already in adoption plans using SH
and women who were never any threat to their newborns, using SH as an
easy solution. * I know of one alleged case (and I'm sure there are
more) where a woman has threatened to SH her (then unborn ) baby unless
the father agrees to terminate his rights after he announced his
intention to seek custody. Add to this the express intent of dump
founders to use SH as a reaction and defense against open records (and
open adoption) and you get a clearer picture of what's going on. In
Texas, in fact, adoption agencies are drop-off points. * BTW, in some
states, such as Florida, SH babies are disappeared right into private
adoption agencies.
As for pushing a legitimate adoption agenda, the propaganda is that of
the anti-aborts: dead baby bad--live baby good. There is no middle
ground. They tend to see only black and white, and if a mother uses a
SH, then she must be a potential baby killer. They do not accept that
women who are using SH as an expedient, have other options. They do
little if anything (a couple advocates not withstanding) to assist women
to keep their babies or where to get help.. Relinquishment and adoption,
if one chooses to carry to term, should not be the priority unless the
woman clearly wants that, and then it should be promoted in best
practice terms.
**I suspect that many advocates of SH do not care much about women
in unattended, multi-vectored pregnancies. In going through the websites
of various SH advocacy organizations, and even I was shocked to see how
little women count. It's all about "saving the baby" and little or
nothing about "saving the mother." If one is inclined to aesthetics you
see pictures of women whose faces are veiled, held low, or even cut from
the picture itself with perhaps a chin or hanging hair showed. (The
iconography of SH is a project in itself.) She's a specter, invisible,
doesn't count except as an incubator. Fathers do not exist at all (with
the exception of 1 poster on the AMT site). "Roving inseminators" don't
deserve rights. Husbands of women who hide pregnancies and SH don't
deserve rights. And if you don't think that happens, think again!
Putative fathers registries are useless in these cases.
Marley

"guess who" <curiousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28138-4018C044-247@storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net...


Thank you, Marley for attempting to answer what I was asking about. Just
so you know, I truly do admire you for what you are fighting for. At
least you do not seem to have any hidden agendas. Everyone who reads
your posts can tell that. And I may just have to read up on those
authors you have mentioned.


jmf

You're welcome!

Marley








Re: MA - There is No Shelter for "Safe Havens Bill/ Jean

Group: alt.adoption Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2004, 5:55am (CST+6) From:
maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net (Marley Greiner)
"guess who" <curiousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3215-401823DE-89@storefull-3331.bay.webtv.net...
Ok, maybe Marley could not answer my question, so I will ask you. And
believe me, I am not for any baby suffering and dying at all! But, I
would like to know if the people (and I think that you are one of them)
who are pushing the Baby Safe Havens would or could answer my question.
Which is this; why don't you put on your stickers that there are other
options besides abandoning your child without being prosecuted such as
adoption? In my ignorance about these things I really would like to
know. Every time I read about this, it says that someone can abandon
their baby without fear of prosecution. And I remember being a teenager
and might have thought at the time that if I read this on some bathroom
wall somewhere that I might have been prosecuted if I had actually gone
the traditional route of adoption. I am speaking metaphorically here as
this did not happen in my life. Jean, I have absolutely nothing to do
with politics except for voting. I really don't think that most people
who abandon their babies are thinking clearly.
jmf
The law were designed to fail. They do not address the real issues in
newborn abandonment: fear, shame, denial, substance abuse, untreated
mental illness, domestic violence, and poverty. In fact, very little
study has been made on the whole in the US on women who actually
abandon. Moreover, privileged advocates, do not comprehend the
irrationality of the act, and therefore seek a rational solution. I've
never heard an explanation on why they think, for instance, that a woman
who has denied her pregnancy for 9 months, even to the extent that her
body has shut down and she shows no pregnancy symptoms, is going to jump
in a car and take the sudden baby to the police, firefighters or a
hospital. It just doesn't happen. The baby, instead is a thing that
needs to be gotten rid of. If you're really interested in the subject I
suggest you read the work of Dr. Margaret Spinelli or Michelle Oberman
and Cheryl Meyers who have written extensively on the topic.
In addition to the faulty thinking of advocates, there is absolutely no
evidence that newborn abandonment is on the upswing, though from the way
they talk there's an epidemic. Advocates sometimes fold in boarder baby
statistics (those are babies that are born and left in hospitals by
parents) in with dangerous abandonment numbers to push their agenda.
Obviously, if 30,000 newborns a year were being dumped on the highways,
byways, trashbins and backyards of America, we'd hear about it.
I have no idea why advocates believe that women who suffer from
these disabilities would use a SH. Instead we see that SH is being used
as an easy "adoption plan," The late Dr. Pierce coined the term
"non-bureaucratic placement" right here on alt.adoption. That is,
adoption is an onerous process with all that mandated counseling and
paperwork. It's just too much for some people. Granted, the number who
can't deal with these kinds of intellectual hardships are small, but for
them there must be something easier. So we set up a parallel simplified
system for them. Drive-by relinquishments. Non-bureaucratic placement.
SH are designed on the Built-in-and-they-will-come philosophy. What we
are beginning to see is women who are already in adoption plans using SH
and women who were never any threat to their newborns, using SH as an
easy solution. I know of one alleged case (and I'm sure there are
more) where a woman has threatened to SH her (then unborn ) baby unless
the father agrees to terminate his rights after he announced his
intention to seek custody. Add to this the express intent of dump
founders to use SH as a reaction and defense against open records (and
open adoption) and you get a clearer picture of what's going on. In
Texas, in fact, adoption agencies are drop-off points. BTW, in some
states, such as Florida, SH babies are disappeared right into private
adoption agencies.
As for pushing a legitimate adoption agenda, the propaganda is that of
the anti-aborts: dead baby bad--live baby good. There is no middle
ground. They tend to see only black and white, and if a mother uses a
SH, then she must be a potential baby killer. They do not accept that
women who are using SH as an expedient, have other options. They do
little if anything (a couple advocates not withstanding) to assist women
to keep their babies or where to get help.. Relinquishment and adoption,
if one chooses to carry to term, should not be the priority unless the
woman clearly wants that, and then it should be promoted in best
practice terms.
I suspect that many advocates of SH do not care much about women
in unattended, multi-vectored pregnancies. In going through the websites
of various SH advocacy organizations, and even I was shocked to see how
little women count. It's all about "saving the baby" and little or
nothing about "saving the mother." If one is inclined to aesthetics you
see pictures of women whose faces are veiled, held low, or even cut from
the picture itself with perhaps a chin or hanging hair showed. (The
iconography of SH is a project in itself.) She's a specter, invisible,
doesn't count except as an incubator. Fathers do not exist at all (with
the exception of 1 poster on the AMT site). "Roving inseminators" don't
deserve rights. Husbands of women who hide pregnancies and SH don't
deserve rights. And if you don't think that happens, think again!
Putative fathers registries are useless in these cases.
Marley

Hi Mike,
Well, noone can say you didn't try to change my mind! And you at least
tried to give alternatives. Thanks for at least responding. You have
given me a lot to think about.
However, I still do not think that the woman who dumps her baby into a
dumpster, places a newborn into freezing weather, or places a baby in
harms way wherever that is, is thinking rationally. I do not think that
this will reach those women. And I am thinking for myself and not just
quoting someone.

jmf


Re: MA - There is No Shelter for "Safe Havens Bill/ Jean

Group: alt.adoption Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2004, 12:07am (CST+6) From:
dtvpro@aol.com (DTVpro)
**curiousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net (guess who) ASKS
"I am not for any baby suffering and dying at all! But, I would like to
know if the people (and I think that you are one of them) who are
pushing the Baby Safe Havens would or could answer my question. Which is
this; why don't you put on your stickers that there are other options
besides abandoning your child without being prosecuted such as
adoption?"
Dear Guess,
There is a vast middle ground out there and one side seems to think that
all Baby Safe Haven advocates want is to "steal" babies from adoption
organizations, that women will only kill their babies and not bring them
safely to a safe haven for a safe surrendering without fear of
prosecution, and that the promotion of Baby Safe Haven laws is only
telling women to ONLY use the laws and not traditional adoption methods.
As you may have guessed all of the above are far to the opposition of
Baby Safe Haven laws side of the ledger.
History has now shown what the reality is. Yes, the stickers don't tell
of traditional adoption methods. There are hundreds more adoption
agencies, attorneys, pregnancy counseling agencies then there are Baby
Safe Haven groups or state agencies directing information campaigns. Why
haven't you asked the too many to count pregnancy counseling agencies
and adoption groups that support Baby Safe Havens to make sure they add
info on Baby Safe Haven laws in their stickers, subway ads and the like?
It's called a single method advertisement or promotion so that the
reader will get a clear single message.
Second. Baby Safe Haven hotlines around the country fielding calls from
women in crisis always first want the woman to get proper care and
deliver in a hospital, then use traditional adoption. In New York there
were 17 such cases in 2002, and a dozen babies safely surrendered at
safe havens. Every crisis is different.
THIRD, and most important. Why doesn't the most militant opposition
groups to Baby Safe Haven laws take up the vast middle ground and do the
honorable thing. Baby Safe Haven laws have proven by history to have
seen well over 200 newborns safely surrendered at police stations, fire
houses, hospitals and other designated locations in the last almost 5
years. Instead of trying to fight off the laws, or roll them back which
will never happen, these groups can start to send out a parallel message
to women who may utilize Baby Safe Haven laws, or who have already
surrendered babies at them. Your message should be just what you have
asked. "Please consider Adoption First, but don't harm your child. Safe
Havens is only a last resort." Then for the 200+ newborns safely
surrendered: "As adoptees we know how important a family link and
medical history can be, please help your baby and give them these
important ties to their heritage. You're immune from prosecution so
contact *whomever you designate*." I'll bet you could get some very
famous adoptees to bring that message forward, but Ms. Greiner will
continue to fight you on this, continue her radical pursuits that
alienate well over 95+% of the people she promotes to, and will never
take an honest path to help future adoptees that may only be alive due
to the 45 Baby Safe Haven laws that have passed in the US. It just goes
to show that if you do the right things, communicate in a palatable
fashion, more and more people will join you in your advocacy. Thank you
for your very insightful questions and we hope to join you in that vast
middle ground sometime soon.
Mike
"Just an old newspaper man."

Top Post: It's nice to know that babies can be as easily abandoned as
puppies and kittens. Why not designate animal shelters as SHs - they serve
the same purpose.

Kathy 1

"DTVpro" <dtvpro@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040128190721.13140.00000556@mb-m20.aol.com... curiousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net (guess who) ASKS "I am not for any baby suffering and dying at all! But, I would like to know if the people (and I think that you are one of them) who are pushing the Baby Safe Havens would or could answer my question. Which is this; why don't you put on your stickers that there are other options besides abandoning your child without being prosecuted such as adoption?" Dear Guess, There is a vast middle ground out there and one side seems to think that
all Baby Safe Haven advocates want is to "steal" babies from adoption organizations, that women will only kill their babies and not bring them
safely to a safe haven for a safe surrendering without fear of prosecution, and
that the promotion of Baby Safe Haven laws is only telling women to ONLY use
the laws and not traditional adoption methods. As you may have guessed all of the above are far to the opposition of Baby
Safe Haven laws side of the ledger. History has now shown what the reality is. Yes, the stickers don't tell of traditional adoption methods. There are hundreds more adoption agencies, attorneys, pregnancy counseling agencies
then there are Baby Safe Haven groups or state agencies directing information campaigns. Why haven't you asked the too many to count pregnancy
counseling agencies and adoption groups that support Baby Safe Havens to make sure
they add info on Baby Safe Haven laws in their stickers, subway ads and the
like? It's called a single method advertisement or promotion so that the reader
will get a clear single message. Second. Baby Safe Haven hotlines around the country fielding calls from
women in crisis always first want the woman to get proper care and deliver in a hospital, then use traditional adoption. In New York there were 17 such
cases in 2002, and a dozen babies safely surrendered at safe havens. Every
crisis is different. THIRD, and most important. Why doesn't the most militant opposition
groups to Baby Safe Haven laws take up the vast middle ground and do the honorable
thing. Baby Safe Haven laws have proven by history to have seen well over 200
newborns safely surrendered at police stations, fire houses, hospitals and other designated locations in the last almost 5 years. Instead of trying to fight off the laws, or roll them back which will
never happen, these groups can start to send out a parallel message to women who
may utilize Baby Safe Haven laws, or who have already surrendered babies at
them. Your message should be just what you have asked. "Please consider
Adoption First, but don't harm your child. Safe Havens is only a last resort." Then for the 200+ newborns safely surrendered: "As adoptees we know how important a family link and medical history can be, please help your baby
and give them these important ties to their heritage. You're immune from prosecution so contact *whomever you designate*." I'll bet you could get some very famous adoptees to bring that message
forward, but Ms. Greiner will continue to fight you on this, continue her radical pursuits that alienate well over 95+% of the people she promotes to, and
will never take an honest path to help future adoptees that may only be alive
due to the 45 Baby Safe Haven laws that have passed in the US. It just goes to show that if you do the right things, communicate in a palatable fashion, more and more people will join you in your advocacy. Thank you for your very insightful questions and we hope to join you in
that vast middle ground sometime soon. Mike "Just an old newspaper man."

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040128122402.13560.00000521@mb-m24.aol.com... Is Adam P for real in the quote he makes at the end of this article?

If you counseled any of my minor daughters to conceal a pregnancy and
surrender a baby anonymously without my consent, and crept into my house in
the dead of night to deliver it and take it away, I might shoot you first,
sue you afterwards.

As for baby dumps being the most proactive response to infant abandonment -
PUHLEAZE! A hundred years ago, especially in US cities, abandonment was
common place. Dallas had over a hundred a year between 1900 ad 1911, NYC in
the thousdands. The proactive response to this crisis, and it was a true
crisis, not the statistical blip of contemporary infant abandonment, was the
creation and promotion of stranger adoption and the professionalization of
child welfare workers. Safe Havens are a step backwards, and as overall
abandonment increase as result of Safe Haven laws, this will be clearly
demonstrable, efforts by baby dump boosters such as yourself to obfuscate
notwithstanding.

Ron It's also funny that every single Rep who is speaking out against the
Baby Safe Haven bill has the home rule petition going into their home towns or cities, with the ones that passed by 90% majorities to unanimous. Isn't it
also an election year for every single one of them?


Jean ~~~~~~~~ There is No Shelter for "Safe Havens Bill" By Adam D. Krauss - Beacon Hill Insider January 27, 2004 Boston City Councillor John Tobin Jr. grew up with 40 children in his
Mattapan home, a result of his parents' willingness to serve as caretakers for children in need and no place to go. Around 1978 the Tobins adopted Patrick, who two years earlier was found abandoned under a motorcycle at a duplex in South Boston. "[My brother
is] one of the lucky ones," Councillor Tobin told the Human Services and
Elderly Affairs Committee on January 14. He was there in support of creating a "safe havens" law in Boston to allow mothers, or a designated family member, to drop off unwanted newborns
under five days old to a designated place to prevent them from being abused or killed. The legislation designates hospital emergency rooms, police
stations and 24-hour firehouses as places where a "lawful agent" can bring a baby without disclosing their identity or having to fear being prosecuted. The nation's first safe havens law was enacted in 1999 under George W.
Bush, then Texas governor. Since then, 45 states - or 97 percent of the
population, according to one advocate - have followed suit The issue has been gaining steam in Massachusetts since May 2000, when statewide legislation was first filed. At least seven communities,
including Lexington and Fall River, have moved to adopt home-rule petitions for safe havens. On February 12 the House will debate proposed legislation. Boston filed a home-rule petition last April. "I'd like to see the city
be a part of this safe havens bill," Mayor Thomas Menino said in a brief interview last week. "It saves lives [and] gives parents an opportunity
to put their children in a safe place. It gives the child a future." As Tobin pointed out during the hearing, the city is "not in a race" with the state to create the laws. Instead, Boston could serve as a pilot
program for the Commonwealth, he said. His eagerness to see the city make safe
havens a reality was met with scattered opposition at the hearing. However,
streams of support came from Rep. Antonio Cabral, co-chair of the committee. In a follow-up interview, Cabral, D-New Bedford, said the committee is
going to hold the so-called Patrick Tobin bill until the House debate. He believes
the statewide legislation will succeed. If it doesn't, Cabral said he thinks
the committee will vote favorably on the city's bill. "I think it's important to have some law in place that does address this need." Not all of Cabral's colleagues share his views. During the hearing, Rep. Anne Paulsen, D-Belmont, said safe haven laws encourage women to have
babies but not care for them. In an interview she said the state does "not have
an acute problem of abandonment.I don't believe it's a serious public emergency." Paulsen and seven other lawmakers sent out an email earlier this month
urging colleagues to oppose the legislation. The letter said safe havens "exist
now in Massachusetts in the form of hospitals and social service agencies
where women can drop their babies off without fear of prosecution if the baby is unharmed." However, the main difference between what currently exists and what the
Patrick Tobin bill entails is that the person giving up the baby can remain
anonymous, aides to Rep. Paulsen have noted in discussions. Tobin told the committee safe havens are a "tool to help save the lives of two people. For social issues like this, you need to have a broader
vision." But that wasn't enough to convince Rep. David Sullivan, D-Fall River, who
said he has "serious issues" with the bill. Safe haven laws are unfair because children grow up without knowing their complete medical and hereditary background, he said. About his adopted brother, Tobin said, "We just know he's alive and healthy.If the baby is dead, the genetic information is moot." "Safe Havens Bill" Gets No Shelter From Critical Legislators The general mood from Beacon Hill lawmakers is that action should be taken statewide. And, at the grassroots level, that's exactly what's been
taking place. Advocates like Michael and Jean Morrisey, of Lexington, have been waging a relentless campaign to bring safe havens to Massachusetts since November 2001, when they buried abandoned baby Rebecca Mary, who was found
by schoolchildren in St. Mary's Cemetery in Dorchester. Michael Morrisey said since May 1, 2000, Boston has had three cases of
deadly abandonment, including Rebecca Mary. The other two occurred in East
Boston. Since then, he added, there have been 10 cases of newborn abandonment
across the state. Out of those 10, six died, he said. "The stance that's taken in Massachusetts is, we're for the concept but we think we can do better," he said. Morrisey said he expects around 100 communities to pass home-rule
petitions by the end of the year. "This is part of the history of safe haven laws," he said. Alabama and Pittsburgh are two states that saw support for safe
havens first swell at the town and city level before spreading statewide, he
said. In March 2003, the Journal of the American Medical Association released a
study by the office of the chief medical examiner at the University of North
Carolina that examined information gathered from 1985 through 2000 on homicides
among children under five days old. Led by Dr. Marcia Herman-Giddens, the
report found that an "estimated minimum of 85 newborn babies are killed or left
to die by one or both parents - usually their mother - in the United States
each year." The average age of the women or girls identified was about 19
years old, and more than half were 18 or older, according to the report,
provided by Tobin's office. Opponents of safe havens, particularly adoption advocates, say the laws
only inflame a problem that has not been properly diagnosed. Around the same time as the UNC report, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, an independent think tank on adoption-related issues in New
York City, released "Unintended Consequences: 'Safe Haven' Laws are Causing Problems, Not Solving Them." During a January 22 interview, Adam Pertman, executive director of the institute and author of "Adoption Nation," said safe haven laws, "by their very nature, circumvent the child welfare system." Addressing claims that saving a baby's life is more important than knowing
the genetic and hereditary information of a child who was abandoned, Pertman
said safe haven advocates "tend not to take into account that the child not
only needs to live but needs to have a life." "If those are our only choices - live or die - I'll do anything to help
the baby live," he said from his Boston office. Pertman said Hawaii vetoed their safe havens law after reading the
institute's study. Responding to research that indicates babies have been saved in
states with the laws, he said, "There is literally no way to know if those babies would have been unsafely abandoned. It principally seems to be reaching
women who otherwise would not have unsafely abandoned their babies.these laws
are begging for lawsuits." Morrisey doesn't agree. Safe haven laws are "the most proactive response
to newborn abandonment in history," he said. "Fifty years.[will] probably confirm that." And Massachusetts can play a big role in the process, he said. "We're more than two-thirds of the majority of the remaining three percent of the country" that does not have safe havens, he said. "Once we pass it, it goes to 99.9 percent or something. It gets real close." Safe havens are "not drop-off boxes," Tobin said in an interview. If funding is an issue, he said, "Put it in my hands."

Now you've done it Ronaldo! Expect the police to come knocking at your
door.

Marley


"Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TxbSb.2012$F23.1471@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... "BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040128122402.13560.00000521@mb-m24.aol.com... Is Adam P for real in the quote he makes at the end of this article? If you counseled any of my minor daughters to conceal a pregnancy and surrender a baby anonymously without my consent, and crept into my house
in the dead of night to deliver it and take it away, I might shoot you first, sue you afterwards. As for baby dumps being the most proactive response to infant
abandonment - PUHLEAZE! A hundred years ago, especially in US cities, abandonment was common place. Dallas had over a hundred a year between 1900 ad 1911, NYC
in the thousdands. The proactive response to this crisis, and it was a true crisis, not the statistical blip of contemporary infant abandonment, was
the creation and promotion of stranger adoption and the professionalization of child welfare workers. Safe Havens are a step backwards, and as overall abandonment increase as result of Safe Haven laws, this will be clearly demonstrable, efforts by baby dump boosters such as yourself to obfuscate notwithstanding. Ron It's also funny that every single Rep who is speaking out against the Baby Safe Haven bill has the home rule petition going into their home towns
or cities, with the ones that passed by 90% majorities to unanimous. Isn't
it also an election year for every single one of them? Jean ~~~~~~~~ There is No Shelter for "Safe Havens Bill" By Adam D. Krauss - Beacon Hill Insider January 27, 2004 Boston City Councillor John Tobin Jr. grew up with 40 children in his Mattapan home, a result of his parents' willingness to serve as caretakers for children in need and no place to go. Around 1978 the Tobins adopted Patrick, who two years earlier was found abandoned under a motorcycle at a duplex in South Boston. "[My brother is] one of the lucky ones," Councillor Tobin told the Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee on January 14. He was there in support of creating a "safe havens" law in Boston to
allow mothers, or a designated family member, to drop off unwanted newborns under five days old to a designated place to prevent them from being abused or killed. The legislation designates hospital emergency rooms, police stations and 24-hour firehouses as places where a "lawful agent" can bring a baby without disclosing their identity or having to fear being prosecuted. The nation's first safe havens law was enacted in 1999 under George W. Bush, then Texas governor. Since then, 45 states - or 97 percent of the population, according to one advocate - have followed suit The issue has been gaining steam in Massachusetts since May 2000, when statewide legislation was first filed. At least seven communities, including Lexington and Fall River, have moved to adopt home-rule petitions for
safe havens. On February 12 the House will debate proposed legislation. Boston filed a home-rule petition last April. "I'd like to see the city be a part of this safe havens bill," Mayor Thomas Menino said in a brief interview last week. "It saves lives [and] gives parents an opportunity to put their children in a safe place. It gives the child a future." As Tobin pointed out during the hearing, the city is "not in a race"
with the state to create the laws. Instead, Boston could serve as a pilot program for the Commonwealth, he said. His eagerness to see the city make safe havens a reality was met with scattered opposition at the hearing. However, streams of support came from Rep. Antonio Cabral, co-chair of the committee. In a follow-up interview, Cabral, D-New Bedford, said the committee is going to hold the so-called Patrick Tobin bill until the House debate. He
believes the statewide legislation will succeed. If it doesn't, Cabral said he
thinks the committee will vote favorably on the city's bill. "I think it's
important to have some law in place that does address this need." Not all of Cabral's colleagues share his views. During the hearing,
Rep. Anne Paulsen, D-Belmont, said safe haven laws encourage women to have babies but not care for them. In an interview she said the state does "not
have an acute problem of abandonment.I don't believe it's a serious public emergency." Paulsen and seven other lawmakers sent out an email earlier this month urging colleagues to oppose the legislation. The letter said safe havens
"exist now in Massachusetts in the form of hospitals and social service agencies where women can drop their babies off without fear of prosecution if the baby
is unharmed." However, the main difference between what currently exists and what the Patrick Tobin bill entails is that the person giving up the baby can remain anonymous, aides to Rep. Paulsen have noted in discussions. Tobin told the committee safe havens are a "tool to help save the lives
of two people. For social issues like this, you need to have a broader vision." But that wasn't enough to convince Rep. David Sullivan, D-Fall River,
who said he has "serious issues" with the bill. Safe haven laws are unfair
because children grow up without knowing their complete medical and hereditary background, he said. About his adopted brother, Tobin said, "We just know he's alive and healthy.If the baby is dead, the genetic information is moot." "Safe Havens Bill" Gets No Shelter From Critical Legislators The general mood from Beacon Hill lawmakers is that action should be
taken statewide. And, at the grassroots level, that's exactly what's been taking place. Advocates like Michael and Jean Morrisey, of Lexington, have
been waging a relentless campaign to bring safe havens to Massachusetts since November 2001, when they buried abandoned baby Rebecca Mary, who was
found by schoolchildren in St. Mary's Cemetery in Dorchester. Michael Morrisey said since May 1, 2000, Boston has had three cases of deadly abandonment, including Rebecca Mary. The other two occurred in East Boston. Since then, he added, there have been 10 cases of newborn abandonment across the state. Out of those 10, six died, he said. "The stance that's taken in Massachusetts is, we're for the concept but
we think we can do better," he said. Morrisey said he expects around 100 communities to pass home-rule petitions by the end of the year. "This is part of the history of safe haven laws,"
he said. Alabama and Pittsburgh are two states that saw support for safe havens first swell at the town and city level before spreading statewide, he said. In March 2003, the Journal of the American Medical Association released
a study by the office of the chief medical examiner at the University of North Carolina that examined information gathered from 1985 through 2000 on homicides among children under five days old. Led by Dr. Marcia Herman-Giddens, the report found that an "estimated minimum of 85 newborn babies are killed or left to die by one or both parents - usually their mother - in the United States each year." The average age of the women or girls identified was about 19 years old, and more than half were 18 or older, according to the report, provided by Tobin's office. Opponents of safe havens, particularly adoption advocates, say the laws only inflame a problem that has not been properly diagnosed. Around the same time as the UNC report, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, an independent think tank on adoption-related issues in New York City, released "Unintended Consequences: 'Safe Haven' Laws are Causing Problems, Not Solving Them." During a January 22 interview, Adam Pertman, executive director of the institute and author of "Adoption Nation," said safe haven laws, "by their very nature, circumvent the child welfare system." Addressing claims that saving a baby's life is more important than
knowing the genetic and hereditary information of a child who was abandoned, Pertman said safe haven advocates "tend not to take into account that the child not only needs to live but needs to have a life." "If those are our only choices - live or die - I'll do anything to help the baby live," he said from his Boston office. Pertman said Hawaii vetoed their safe havens law after reading the institute's study. Responding to research that indicates babies have been saved in states with the laws, he said, "There is literally no way to know if those
babies would have been unsafely abandoned. It principally seems to be reaching women who otherwise would not have unsafely abandoned their babies.these laws are begging for lawsuits." Morrisey doesn't agree. Safe haven laws are "the most proactive
response to newborn abandonment in history," he said. "Fifty years.[will] probably confirm that." And Massachusetts can play a big role in the process, he said. "We're more than two-thirds of the majority of the remaining
three percent of the country" that does not have safe havens, he said. "Once
we pass it, it goes to 99.9 percent or something. It gets real close." Safe havens are "not drop-off boxes," Tobin said in an interview. If funding is an issue, he said, "Put it in my hands."

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:thmSb.34554$6O4.957218@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... Now you've done it Ronaldo! Expect the police to come knocking at your door. Marley

I doubt it, although I'm sure Captain Dillon, the guy I work with in our
District, and I would share a chuckle over it.

Ron

"Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:TxbSb.2012$F23.1471@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... "BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040128122402.13560.00000521@mb-m24.aol.com... Is Adam P for real in the quote he makes at the end of this article? If you counseled any of my minor daughters to conceal a pregnancy and surrender a baby anonymously without my consent, and crept into my house in the dead of night to deliver it and take it away, I might shoot you
first, sue you afterwards. As for baby dumps being the most proactive response to infant abandonment - PUHLEAZE! A hundred years ago, especially in US cities, abandonment was common place. Dallas had over a hundred a year between 1900 ad 1911, NYC in the thousdands. The proactive response to this crisis, and it was a true crisis, not the statistical blip of contemporary infant abandonment, was the creation and promotion of stranger adoption and the professionalization
of child welfare workers. Safe Havens are a step backwards, and as overall abandonment increase as result of Safe Haven laws, this will be clearly demonstrable, efforts by baby dump boosters such as yourself to
obfuscate notwithstanding. Ron It's also funny that every single Rep who is speaking out against the Baby Safe Haven bill has the home rule petition going into their home towns or cities, with the ones that passed by 90% majorities to unanimous.
Isn't it also an election year for every single one of them? Jean ~~~~~~~~ There is No Shelter for "Safe Havens Bill" By Adam D. Krauss - Beacon Hill Insider January 27, 2004 Boston City Councillor John Tobin Jr. grew up with 40 children in his Mattapan home, a result of his parents' willingness to serve as caretakers for children in need and no place to go. Around 1978 the Tobins adopted Patrick, who two years earlier was
found abandoned under a motorcycle at a duplex in South Boston. "[My
brother is] one of the lucky ones," Councillor Tobin told the Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee on January 14. He was there in support of creating a "safe havens" law in Boston to allow mothers, or a designated family member, to drop off unwanted newborns under five days old to a designated place to prevent them from being abused
or killed. The legislation designates hospital emergency rooms, police stations and 24-hour firehouses as places where a "lawful agent" can bring a
baby without disclosing their identity or having to fear being prosecuted. The nation's first safe havens law was enacted in 1999 under George W. Bush, then Texas governor. Since then, 45 states - or 97 percent of the population, according to one advocate - have followed suit The issue has been gaining steam in Massachusetts since May 2000, when statewide legislation was first filed. At least seven communities, including Lexington and Fall River, have moved to adopt home-rule petitions for safe havens. On February 12 the House will debate proposed legislation. Boston filed a home-rule petition last April. "I'd like to see the
city be a part of this safe havens bill," Mayor Thomas Menino said in a brief interview last week. "It saves lives [and] gives parents an
opportunity to put their children in a safe place. It gives the child a future." As Tobin pointed out during the hearing, the city is "not in a race" with the state to create the laws. Instead, Boston could serve as a pilot program for the Commonwealth, he said. His eagerness to see the city make
safe havens a reality was met with scattered opposition at the hearing. However, streams of support came from Rep. Antonio Cabral, co-chair of the committee. In a follow-up interview, Cabral, D-New Bedford, said the committee is going to hold the so-called Patrick Tobin bill until the House debate. He believes the statewide legislation will succeed. If it doesn't, Cabral said he thinks the committee will vote favorably on the city's bill. "I think it's important to have some law in place that does address this need." Not all of Cabral's colleagues share his views. During the hearing, Rep. Anne Paulsen, D-Belmont, said safe haven laws encourage women to have babies but not care for them. In an interview she said the state does "not have an acute problem of abandonment.I don't believe it's a serious public emergency." Paulsen and seven other lawmakers sent out an email earlier this month urging colleagues to oppose the legislation. The letter said safe havens "exist now in Massachusetts in the form of hospitals and social service agencies where women can drop their babies off without fear of prosecution if the
baby is unharmed." However, the main difference between what currently exists and what
the Patrick Tobin bill entails is that the person giving up the baby can remain anonymous, aides to Rep. Paulsen have noted in discussions. Tobin told the committee safe havens are a "tool to help save the
lives of two people. For social issues like this, you need to have a broader vision." But that wasn't enough to convince Rep. David Sullivan, D-Fall River, who said he has "serious issues" with the bill. Safe haven laws are unfair because children grow up without knowing their complete medical and hereditary background, he said. About his adopted brother, Tobin said, "We just know he's alive and healthy.If the baby is dead, the genetic information is moot." "Safe Havens Bill" Gets No Shelter From Critical Legislators The general mood from Beacon Hill lawmakers is that action should be taken statewide. And, at the grassroots level, that's exactly what's been taking place. Advocates like Michael and Jean Morrisey, of Lexington, have been waging a relentless campaign to bring safe havens to Massachusetts
since November 2001, when they buried abandoned baby Rebecca Mary, who was found by schoolchildren in St. Mary's Cemetery in Dorchester. Michael Morrisey said since May 1, 2000, Boston has had three cases of deadly abandonment, including Rebecca Mary. The other two occurred in East Boston. Since then, he added, there have been 10 cases of newborn abandonment across the state. Out of those 10, six died, he said. "The stance that's taken in Massachusetts is, we're for the concept
but we think we can do better," he said. Morrisey said he expects around 100 communities to pass home-rule petitions by the end of the year. "This is part of the history of safe haven
laws," he said. Alabama and Pittsburgh are two states that saw support for safe havens first swell at the town and city level before spreading statewide, he said. In March 2003, the Journal of the American Medical Association
released a study by the office of the chief medical examiner at the University of North Carolina that examined information gathered from 1985 through 2000 on homicides
among children under five days old. Led by Dr. Marcia Herman-Giddens, the report found that an "estimated minimum of 85 newborn babies are killed or
left to die by one or both parents - usually their mother - in the United
States each year." The average age of the women or girls identified was about 19 years old, and more than half were 18 or older, according to the report, provided by Tobin's office. Opponents of safe havens, particularly adoption advocates, say the
laws only inflame a problem that has not been properly diagnosed. Around the same time as the UNC report, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, an independent think tank on adoption-related issues in New York City, released "Unintended Consequences: 'Safe Haven' Laws are Causing Problems, Not Solving Them." During a January 22 interview, Adam Pertman, executive director of the institute and author of "Adoption Nation," said safe haven laws, "by their very nature, circumvent the child welfare system." Addressing claims that saving a baby's life is more important than knowing the genetic and hereditary information of a child who was abandoned,
Pertman said safe haven advocates "tend not to take into account that the child not only needs to live but needs to have a life." "If those are our only choices - live or die - I'll do anything to
help the baby live," he said from his Boston office. Pertman said Hawaii vetoed their safe havens law after reading the institute's study. Responding to research that indicates babies have been saved in states with the laws, he said, "There is literally no way to know if those babies would have been unsafely abandoned. It principally seems to be
reaching women who otherwise would not have unsafely abandoned their babies.these
laws are begging for lawsuits." Morrisey doesn't agree. Safe haven laws are "the most proactive response to newborn abandonment in history," he said. "Fifty years.[will]
probably confirm that." And Massachusetts can play a big role in the process,
he said. "We're more than two-thirds of the majority of the remaining three percent of the country" that does not have safe havens, he said.
"Once we pass it, it goes to 99.9 percent or something. It gets real close." Safe havens are "not drop-off boxes," Tobin said in an interview. If funding is an issue, he said, "Put it in my hands."