BabySafeHaven
03-13-2004, 05:41 AM
Just as predicted, Rep Kathy Teahan flips and flops, this time back to our
side. See article below.
Jean
~~~~~~
MASSACHUSETTS
http://www.milforddailynews.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=43374
House to vote on 'safe havens'
By Michael Kunzelman / News Staff Writer
Thursday, March 11, 2004
BOSTON -- Before the state Legislature's debate on gay marriage resumes today,
House lawmakers are expected to take a long-awaited vote on a bill that would
create "safe havens" where parents can leave a newborn child without facing
criminal charges.
The measure, co-sponsored by state Rep. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, has
languished in the Legislature for more than two years, blocked by critics who
fear it would lead to a rise in child abandonment. But Spilka said the bill's
supporters have crafted a compromise version that appears to satisfy some of
its opponents.
"There are some people who are still convinced we're not addressing the
needs of the mothers, or that it would increase abandonments, but there's
absolutely no statistical evidence to support that," said Spilka, a lawyer who
has a background in counseling and social work.
Under the legislation, a parent who leaves an infant at a hospital, police
station or 24-hour fire station within seven days of the child's birth could
not be charged with abuse or neglect unless the baby shows signs of physical
abuse. An earlier draft of the bill gave parents 30 days instead of a week.
State Rep. Barry Finegold, an Andover Democrat who co-sponsored the bill,
said the deadline was not a major sticking point. "It's really those first 72
hours where you have a lot of infant fatalities," he said.
The state Department of Social Services would take custody of the
children, but the parents who leave an infant at the safe havens would not
automatically lose their parental rights. The state would have to obtain a
court order to terminate those parental rights.
"Better that they're given up for adoption by a family rather than thrown
in a trash can somewhere," said state Rep. Carol Donovan, a Woburn Democrat who
supports the measure.
The professionals at the safe havens are encouraged to solicit information
from the parents, including their names and address or details of the child's
medical history, but the parents would not be legally required to furnish that
information.
In a concession to the bill's critics, its sponsors added a "sunset
provision" to the measure. The law would expire Jan. 1, 2006, unless the
Legislature takes action to keep it on the books. Some lawmakers want to extend
the sunset date to 2007 or 2008 when the measure reaches the House floor today.
"I'm not thrilled with the sunset provision," Finegold said, "because it's
going to take a lot longer to judge the effectiveness of this law."
In the meantime, DSS would be required to study the effectiveness of safe
havens, gauge the effect on the rate of child abandonment, on the adoption
process and on foster care.
According to Spilka, 46 states already have passed some form of safe haven
legislation. The rate of child abandonment has not risen in any of those
states, she said.
"Let's just pass it and see how it works," she said. "If we can save the
life of even one baby, I can't imagine how anyone can say the bill isn't worth
it."
Some lawmakers object to language in the bill that would require DSS to
create a "public information campaign" promoting the law through
advertisements, public service announcements and a toll-free hotline.
State Rep. Kay Khan, D-Newton, said the money earmarked for safe havens
would be better spent on existing programs and services that combat child
neglect and help prevent teenage pregnancy.
"Personally, I feel this is kind of a feel-good piece of legislation," she
said. "I think this is diverting attention away from the real problems we're
facing."
Khan claimed no parent has ever been prosecuted in Massachusetts for
abandoning a child who was not physically abused. "We already have laws in
place that protect parents and babies if they're abandoned," she said.
State Rep. Kathleen Teahan, a Whitman Democrat who had opposed the bill,
sponsored an amendment that would require the state to set aside money for
existing adoption services and teen pregnancy prevention programs in addition
to funding safe havens.
Teahan said she will vote for the bill if it includes her amendment.
"We've already slashed so many programs that would have prevented women
from being in this situation," she said. "To start a new program from scratch
and put money into it doesn't really get to the root of the problem."
Donovan said she expects the bill to be approved by the House today and
forwarded to the Senate.
"I would say it wouldn't come up for a vote if it wasn't going to pass.
Nothing ever does," she said.
Several lawmakers said House Speaker Thomas Finneran supports the bill,
but Finneran spokesman Charles Rasmussen said he does not know where the
speaker stands on the issue.
side. See article below.
Jean
~~~~~~
MASSACHUSETTS
http://www.milforddailynews.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=43374
House to vote on 'safe havens'
By Michael Kunzelman / News Staff Writer
Thursday, March 11, 2004
BOSTON -- Before the state Legislature's debate on gay marriage resumes today,
House lawmakers are expected to take a long-awaited vote on a bill that would
create "safe havens" where parents can leave a newborn child without facing
criminal charges.
The measure, co-sponsored by state Rep. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, has
languished in the Legislature for more than two years, blocked by critics who
fear it would lead to a rise in child abandonment. But Spilka said the bill's
supporters have crafted a compromise version that appears to satisfy some of
its opponents.
"There are some people who are still convinced we're not addressing the
needs of the mothers, or that it would increase abandonments, but there's
absolutely no statistical evidence to support that," said Spilka, a lawyer who
has a background in counseling and social work.
Under the legislation, a parent who leaves an infant at a hospital, police
station or 24-hour fire station within seven days of the child's birth could
not be charged with abuse or neglect unless the baby shows signs of physical
abuse. An earlier draft of the bill gave parents 30 days instead of a week.
State Rep. Barry Finegold, an Andover Democrat who co-sponsored the bill,
said the deadline was not a major sticking point. "It's really those first 72
hours where you have a lot of infant fatalities," he said.
The state Department of Social Services would take custody of the
children, but the parents who leave an infant at the safe havens would not
automatically lose their parental rights. The state would have to obtain a
court order to terminate those parental rights.
"Better that they're given up for adoption by a family rather than thrown
in a trash can somewhere," said state Rep. Carol Donovan, a Woburn Democrat who
supports the measure.
The professionals at the safe havens are encouraged to solicit information
from the parents, including their names and address or details of the child's
medical history, but the parents would not be legally required to furnish that
information.
In a concession to the bill's critics, its sponsors added a "sunset
provision" to the measure. The law would expire Jan. 1, 2006, unless the
Legislature takes action to keep it on the books. Some lawmakers want to extend
the sunset date to 2007 or 2008 when the measure reaches the House floor today.
"I'm not thrilled with the sunset provision," Finegold said, "because it's
going to take a lot longer to judge the effectiveness of this law."
In the meantime, DSS would be required to study the effectiveness of safe
havens, gauge the effect on the rate of child abandonment, on the adoption
process and on foster care.
According to Spilka, 46 states already have passed some form of safe haven
legislation. The rate of child abandonment has not risen in any of those
states, she said.
"Let's just pass it and see how it works," she said. "If we can save the
life of even one baby, I can't imagine how anyone can say the bill isn't worth
it."
Some lawmakers object to language in the bill that would require DSS to
create a "public information campaign" promoting the law through
advertisements, public service announcements and a toll-free hotline.
State Rep. Kay Khan, D-Newton, said the money earmarked for safe havens
would be better spent on existing programs and services that combat child
neglect and help prevent teenage pregnancy.
"Personally, I feel this is kind of a feel-good piece of legislation," she
said. "I think this is diverting attention away from the real problems we're
facing."
Khan claimed no parent has ever been prosecuted in Massachusetts for
abandoning a child who was not physically abused. "We already have laws in
place that protect parents and babies if they're abandoned," she said.
State Rep. Kathleen Teahan, a Whitman Democrat who had opposed the bill,
sponsored an amendment that would require the state to set aside money for
existing adoption services and teen pregnancy prevention programs in addition
to funding safe havens.
Teahan said she will vote for the bill if it includes her amendment.
"We've already slashed so many programs that would have prevented women
from being in this situation," she said. "To start a new program from scratch
and put money into it doesn't really get to the root of the problem."
Donovan said she expects the bill to be approved by the House today and
forwarded to the Senate.
"I would say it wouldn't come up for a vote if it wasn't going to pass.
Nothing ever does," she said.
Several lawmakers said House Speaker Thomas Finneran supports the bill,
but Finneran spokesman Charles Rasmussen said he does not know where the
speaker stands on the issue.
