Tweet
Way to go Representative Paulsen!
Hope her constituents are happy with her stance, especially the constituent
that's planning to run against her in the fall election.
I guess it didn't matter that the Boards of Selectmen, in both of the towns she
represents, voted unanimously to put the home rule petition on both of their
upcoming town meetings.
Jean
=====================
MASSACHUSETTS
http://www.townonline.com/belmont/ne...by02182004.htm
Paulsen helps block 'safe havens'
By Arthur Katz / Correspondent
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Anne Paulsen, Belmont's state representative, and seven fellow legislators have
successfully stopped the adoption of a so-called "safe havens" bill in the
current legislative session.
Speaker of the House Thomas Finneran canceled a floor debate last Tuesday, Feb.
10, and then erected a permanent barrier to the bill going forward.
Such legislation, already adopted in 45 states, allow the anonymous abandonment
of newborns at designated sites - hospitals, fire stations and police stations
- in the expectation that such protection will reduce or eliminate the practice
of leaving unwanted babies in dumpsters or other situations that may result in
their deaths.
"This bill would have set social welfare policy back 100 years," Paulsen said
in an interview last week. "This was a 'feel-good' bill that did not attack the
roots of the problem of unwanted pregnancies."
In the states that have passed similar legislation, "No statistics have been
developed that show that the children who were abandoned illegally would have
been saved had a bill been in effect," said Paulsen. "Rates of abandonment have
not gone down in many states. New Jersey, Florida and Texas all have huge
numbers of abandonments despite safe havens laws because their social services
are in disarray."
Paulsen also objected to the legislation on the grounds that it might encourage
abandonment of newborns.
"Abandonment means that the child has no birthright, no medical history, and
because those lacks make adoption more difficult, it often leaves children in
foster care much longer than would otherwise be the case," she said.
"I served on an adoption commission in 1998 that came up with a number of
reforms and new rules to streamline adoption proceedings. The bill provide
needed money to implement the needed changes at the time, but the Legislature
has ignored these needs since," Paulsen said.
Massachusetts joins Alaska, Hawaii (where the governor vetoed a safe havens
bill), Nebraska and Vermont as the five states which have resisted efforts to
put such legislation in place since Texas passed the first such bill in 1999.
Despite the closing of the legislative avenue, Michael and Jean Morrisey of
Lexington are continuing to pursue safe haven laws in communities throughout
Massachusetts.
The Morriseys got involved in the issue in 2001, when they offered to bury Baby
Rebecca, a newborn found abandoned and dead in a Dorchester graveyard. Since
that time, they have been promoting legislation in Massachusetts that they say
would prevent future such tragedies.
With help from the Morriseys, three Bay State cities and four towns (Boston,
Westfield, Ludlow, Framingham, Natick, Lexington and Fall River) have passed
home rule petitions to declare their communities safe havens, and Morrisey
expects another 15 towns to have similar warrant articles in this spring's Town
Meetings, including Belmont, Arlington, Burlington and Westford.
A review of the legislation in the 45 states where it is in force, reveals
certain uniformities but a wide discrepancy in many issues.
According to a report issued by the National Center for State Courts, all safe
haven statutes designate where a baby may be dropped off, with all designating
hospitals and some adding police and fire stations, adoption agencies and other
health-care providers.
Seventeen states require that the baby be relinquished within 72 hours of
birth, while others allow up to 90 days.
Anonymity is assured in all the statutes, but 20 states allow safe haven
personnel to ask for medical information.
All states shield the mother from liability in abandoning an infant, either
through making parents immune from prosecution for the abandonment or providing
the mother with a legal defense.
No state requires a mother to identify her infant's father.
In some instances, the legislation has had the intended effect of saving
newborn lives that might otherwise be lost. A number of news stories report
mothers leaving babies at designated stations and hospitals, apparently because
of the new laws.
However, the results appear highly dependent on the amount of publicity that
the new laws are given in the individual states. Georgia, Ohio, California and
Kentucky, which have reportedly funded campaigns to spread the word of the
laws, have had better results than other states.
A detailed search of the Internet failed to reveal any nationwide statistical
study that would quantify the effects of the legislation. One of the few
jurisdictions which does track abandonments, Los Angeles County in California,
appears to have made some headway in reducing illegal abandonments.
But without more data, the controversy over the legislation continues, even
though it currently covers 97 percent of the U.S. population.
The National Conference of State Legislatures reported in October 2003, "The
[safe haven] laws continue to have a limited effect ... Unlawful abandonment
continues to be a problem."
The report continues, "Since so little is known about the women who abandon
their babies, there is no proof that the legislation will discourage mothers
from leaving their infants in unsafe places. For women who might otherwise seek
help from family, friends and social service agencies, the enactment of safe
haven laws might encourage them to anonymously abandon their newborns rather
than take advantage of the traditional network of support."
Some agencies involved with adoption of unwanted children view safe haven laws,
where the mother need provide no identification when abandoning a baby, as
compromising their mission by reducing the possibility of having medical
information on newborns as well as effectively cutting off the possibility of
later relations with the natural mothers, and of significantly prolonging the
time of foster care because of judicial issues when both parents of an adoptee
are unknown.
These reasons are among those cited in a 2003 report from the Evan B. Johnson
Adoption Institute, which calls itself a "public policy research source"
concerned with improving the quality of information about adoption, enhancing
the understanding of adoption and advancing adoption policy and practice.
The institute's report criticizes safe haven laws as "encouraging women to
conceal pregnancies, then abandon infants who might otherwise have been placed
in adoptions through established legal procedures ... inducing abandonment by
women who otherwise would not have done so because it seems 'easier' than
receiving counseling or making an adoption plan."
The report goes on to note that most states have not been collecting data on
baby abandonment in public places, making an informed assessment difficult.
None of the resistance to their crusade has deterred the Morriseys. Michael
Morrisey said this week, "We made a vow to Baby Rebecca as we lowered her into
her grave in November 2001: 'No mas.' We would not stop until a safe haven law
was passed and implemented in the commonwealth, so that not one more newborn
would meet her fate and a woman such as Baby Rebecca's mom would have the
option of safely surrendering a newborn."
Hope her constituents are happy with her stance, especially the constituent
that's planning to run against her in the fall election.
I guess it didn't matter that the Boards of Selectmen, in both of the towns she
represents, voted unanimously to put the home rule petition on both of their
upcoming town meetings.
Jean
=====================
MASSACHUSETTS
http://www.townonline.com/belmont/ne...by02182004.htm
Paulsen helps block 'safe havens'
By Arthur Katz / Correspondent
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Anne Paulsen, Belmont's state representative, and seven fellow legislators have
successfully stopped the adoption of a so-called "safe havens" bill in the
current legislative session.
Speaker of the House Thomas Finneran canceled a floor debate last Tuesday, Feb.
10, and then erected a permanent barrier to the bill going forward.
Such legislation, already adopted in 45 states, allow the anonymous abandonment
of newborns at designated sites - hospitals, fire stations and police stations
- in the expectation that such protection will reduce or eliminate the practice
of leaving unwanted babies in dumpsters or other situations that may result in
their deaths.
"This bill would have set social welfare policy back 100 years," Paulsen said
in an interview last week. "This was a 'feel-good' bill that did not attack the
roots of the problem of unwanted pregnancies."
In the states that have passed similar legislation, "No statistics have been
developed that show that the children who were abandoned illegally would have
been saved had a bill been in effect," said Paulsen. "Rates of abandonment have
not gone down in many states. New Jersey, Florida and Texas all have huge
numbers of abandonments despite safe havens laws because their social services
are in disarray."
Paulsen also objected to the legislation on the grounds that it might encourage
abandonment of newborns.
"Abandonment means that the child has no birthright, no medical history, and
because those lacks make adoption more difficult, it often leaves children in
foster care much longer than would otherwise be the case," she said.
"I served on an adoption commission in 1998 that came up with a number of
reforms and new rules to streamline adoption proceedings. The bill provide
needed money to implement the needed changes at the time, but the Legislature
has ignored these needs since," Paulsen said.
Massachusetts joins Alaska, Hawaii (where the governor vetoed a safe havens
bill), Nebraska and Vermont as the five states which have resisted efforts to
put such legislation in place since Texas passed the first such bill in 1999.
Despite the closing of the legislative avenue, Michael and Jean Morrisey of
Lexington are continuing to pursue safe haven laws in communities throughout
Massachusetts.
The Morriseys got involved in the issue in 2001, when they offered to bury Baby
Rebecca, a newborn found abandoned and dead in a Dorchester graveyard. Since
that time, they have been promoting legislation in Massachusetts that they say
would prevent future such tragedies.
With help from the Morriseys, three Bay State cities and four towns (Boston,
Westfield, Ludlow, Framingham, Natick, Lexington and Fall River) have passed
home rule petitions to declare their communities safe havens, and Morrisey
expects another 15 towns to have similar warrant articles in this spring's Town
Meetings, including Belmont, Arlington, Burlington and Westford.
A review of the legislation in the 45 states where it is in force, reveals
certain uniformities but a wide discrepancy in many issues.
According to a report issued by the National Center for State Courts, all safe
haven statutes designate where a baby may be dropped off, with all designating
hospitals and some adding police and fire stations, adoption agencies and other
health-care providers.
Seventeen states require that the baby be relinquished within 72 hours of
birth, while others allow up to 90 days.
Anonymity is assured in all the statutes, but 20 states allow safe haven
personnel to ask for medical information.
All states shield the mother from liability in abandoning an infant, either
through making parents immune from prosecution for the abandonment or providing
the mother with a legal defense.
No state requires a mother to identify her infant's father.
In some instances, the legislation has had the intended effect of saving
newborn lives that might otherwise be lost. A number of news stories report
mothers leaving babies at designated stations and hospitals, apparently because
of the new laws.
However, the results appear highly dependent on the amount of publicity that
the new laws are given in the individual states. Georgia, Ohio, California and
Kentucky, which have reportedly funded campaigns to spread the word of the
laws, have had better results than other states.
A detailed search of the Internet failed to reveal any nationwide statistical
study that would quantify the effects of the legislation. One of the few
jurisdictions which does track abandonments, Los Angeles County in California,
appears to have made some headway in reducing illegal abandonments.
But without more data, the controversy over the legislation continues, even
though it currently covers 97 percent of the U.S. population.
The National Conference of State Legislatures reported in October 2003, "The
[safe haven] laws continue to have a limited effect ... Unlawful abandonment
continues to be a problem."
The report continues, "Since so little is known about the women who abandon
their babies, there is no proof that the legislation will discourage mothers
from leaving their infants in unsafe places. For women who might otherwise seek
help from family, friends and social service agencies, the enactment of safe
haven laws might encourage them to anonymously abandon their newborns rather
than take advantage of the traditional network of support."
Some agencies involved with adoption of unwanted children view safe haven laws,
where the mother need provide no identification when abandoning a baby, as
compromising their mission by reducing the possibility of having medical
information on newborns as well as effectively cutting off the possibility of
later relations with the natural mothers, and of significantly prolonging the
time of foster care because of judicial issues when both parents of an adoptee
are unknown.
These reasons are among those cited in a 2003 report from the Evan B. Johnson
Adoption Institute, which calls itself a "public policy research source"
concerned with improving the quality of information about adoption, enhancing
the understanding of adoption and advancing adoption policy and practice.
The institute's report criticizes safe haven laws as "encouraging women to
conceal pregnancies, then abandon infants who might otherwise have been placed
in adoptions through established legal procedures ... inducing abandonment by
women who otherwise would not have done so because it seems 'easier' than
receiving counseling or making an adoption plan."
The report goes on to note that most states have not been collecting data on
baby abandonment in public places, making an informed assessment difficult.
None of the resistance to their crusade has deterred the Morriseys. Michael
Morrisey said this week, "We made a vow to Baby Rebecca as we lowered her into
her grave in November 2001: 'No mas.' We would not stop until a safe haven law
was passed and implemented in the commonwealth, so that not one more newborn
would meet her fate and a woman such as Baby Rebecca's mom would have the
option of safely surrendering a newborn."
Comment