e-mail
This news story certainly puts the “crisis” in crisis pregnancy. (Trouble with the link? Search for “The fight for Baby Joseph,” by Isaac Bailey of The Sun News, Myrtle Beach, SC).
In this weird chain of events, a young mother gets pregnant, doesn’t realize what resources are available to help her, and panics after giving birth (not in a hospital). She doesn’t know where to go or where to take her baby. The current trend in “baby dump” laws probably confused the issue in her mind, making her halfway aware that in some places, you can anonymously turn over your newborn to strangers. But where and when?
Oddly, she and her partner chose an Eckerd’s drugstore. When she realized she’d made a mistake, she fought to have custody restored. The couple is now taking parenting classes while their baby resides in foster care.
“Safe haven” laws, also known as “baby dump” laws, are supposed to help prevent situations like this. The legislation is well-intentioned. By providing anonymous drop-off locations such as fire stations, the idea is to prevent any infant from ever winding up dead in a trash can or dumpster. Who can argue with that?
However, in practice, baby dump laws are a bad idea. They tell parents that you can have a baby, get rid of it anonymously, without a care for what medical knowledge the child will eventually need, or the questions of identity that will never be able to be answered. All this, with no repercussions… because we’d rather have more babies available for adoption than ensure that first parents acted responsibly and faced up to their actions.
If you bring a child into this world, you cannot simply dump him or her off and expect to walk away from the entire situation. If you give birth, you have a lifelong obligation to either provide a good home, or ensure a good adoptive home. Either way, it is also your responsibility to provide information to your child.
Safe haven laws are made by well-meaning politicians, but they don’t take the needs of adopted people into account. What crises like these point out is the need for more social services and support for those in unplanned pregancies, not less. We’ve got to reduce the shame and stigma associated with these pregnancies, instead of creating more.
“What crises like these point out is the need for more social services and support for those in unplanned pregancies, not less. We’ve got to reduce the shame and stigma associated with these pregnancies, instead of creating more.”
True. But, until that happens (and who knows when or if it ever will), there will continue to be young parents who panic and make stupid and irresponsible choices after giving birth.
In a state of crisis they are hardly capable of upholding their “obligation to either provide a good home, or ensure a good adoptive home.” Yes, we should work towards this goal. But, we’re not there yet. Until we get there, I say leave the safe haven laws in place. Provide more education and more exposure about the laws through public service announcements and approved curriculums in high schools.
Is there any evidence at all that the safe haven laws have prevented the situation of babies winding up in trash cans?
Here’s where I’m coming from. The people who use safe havens, would have used closed adoption if anonymous drop-offs were not allowed, and if so, their child would at least have some info about where they came from. The people who are going to freak out and put their baby in a dumpster are still going to do that. They just don’t have the presence of mind to stop and think, “Hmmm, perhaps I should do this the right way and seek a Safe Haven.”
In late 2003, I argued in a radio debate with the Morrisseys that anonymous safe haven (SH) laws were bad policy because they were wide open to abuse. I argued to the trial and appellate courts in Franklin County Ohio that, because SH let any person, for any reason, surrender their child to the state, the law would be used primarily to help mothers hide infants from fathers and to cover up abuse, neglect, and crime. The Ohio Attorney General admitted SH could be used by any parent “for any reason.” [See safe haven separation of powers article and Smith v. Hayes at http://www.eriksmith.org The French organization, CADCO, argued that SH was a tool for the government to use wrongly in bargaining with persons contemplating crime. [See “Amicus Brief of CADCO” under Smith v. Hayes at http://www.eriksmith.org.
These truths were borne out by the Tywana Davis revelation. She had dumped her baby who was conceived when she committed statutory rape. The Baby Dumpers would have Davis dump her baby anonymously and then call Davis a hero. The government is doing no more than offering parents who have committed, or are contemplating, crimes a plea bargain. Such abuses are not the exceptions. Several cases exist where the parent has communicated to the SH recipient that they are dumping their child anonymously out of love or because they lack resources. Obviously, those parents do not feel homicidal, but simply want a short cut to adoption.
We do need to reduce the shame and stigma associated with unplanned pregnancies. But we do not need more social services. Temporary and permanent surrender options have existed for decades and are used regularly by thousands of mothers and fathers every year. We also have welfare and other programs through children’s services that new parents can use when they lack funds or support.
No law is valid because it might “save a life.” Were that true, we would not have our bill of rights. We do not let the police pull drivers over randomly and give them breathalyzer tests because “it might save a life.” We do not outlaw guns because it might “save a life.” The state shouldn’t help parents hide children from each other because it might save a life either.