e-mail
An article appeared in the Chicago Tribune today debating the merits of safe haven laws. It was interesting reading.
The article poses the question, “Are safe haven laws effective or just well-intentioned?” Honestly, I totally haven’t made up my mind exactly on how I feel about these safe haven laws. I can see the pros and cons to having and not having safe haven laws but I’m leaning more towards the side of them being well intentioned.
To clarify, safe haven laws are laws allowing the legal abandonment of a baby in a pre-designated “safe place” such as a hospital, fire department, police department, etc. 47 states now have safe haven laws and the stipulations vary.
The article starts out with a story of a child who is two years old and gives examples of some of the things her adoptive parents can tell her and then goes on to point out the big thing they can not tell her – anything about her biological family.
” Advocates celebrate every infant safely recovered as an alternative to babies left to die in toilets, trash cans and alleys. However, some experts say the laws encourage women to abandon babies rather than go through the adoption process. As a result, there isn’t even rudimentary information about the biological parents.”
Advocates of the law say that babies lives are being saved – that this law is preventing baby dumping – babies ending up in dumpsters, toilets, alley ways, etc. Adversaries of the law feel that women should make adoption plans that allow their children to have some sort of access to their medical records and to at least know a little bit of their biological history. Adversaries also feel that if a woman is in such dire straits that she is going to dump her baby that a law may not change that and the specifics of the law may not be known to these mothers.
I haven’t heard of a baby ending up in a dumpster, toilet, or alley way in my state in quite awhile. However, a baby was dropped off recently at a medical center using the safe haven law, just a few months ago. But I can’t help but wonder if the law is what is saving the babies or is society becoming more accepting of teen and unwed mothers so that people are not feeling so desperate that they need to take extreme measures.
I know this can be a controversial subject, but I tend to lean towards the save haven laws to have more “pros” than “cons.” I agree that a child does have a right to know their heritage, on the other hand, they were not abandoned where they may not be found in time. There is no perfect solution to the issue of abandoning babies, but I think the safe haven laws is a big step in the right direction.
Nothing I have ever read about safe haven laws, nor any statistics, indicate to me that safe haven laws really work.
Babies need to be relinquished safely, but we already have adoption for that. Women so desperate to consider a safe haven need some serious help. The theory behind safe havens is to save babies, but, from all indications they are ineffective.
There have to be better ways than allowing anonymous abandonment. I think safe havens are a very bad idea. A step in the right direction would be better options for women in crisis pregnancies.
Agreed Jan! I searched for statistics on it and could find none…
I live in a state with Safe Haven Laws but the only stories you hear about and the latest is baby found in a dumpster. I honestly don’t know much about the law but feel in the long run it does nothing for the child left behind who won’t know anything about their past.