*Menu
Search
Submit
McCook Gazette
*
Blurbs from Betsy
Betsy Coolidge
Recent posts
Archives

Safe Haven

Posted Friday, October 31, 2008, at 10:41 AM

There will be special session of our Unicameral to "correct" the current safe haven law.

While we all could debate this issue on a myriad of levels, I believe the intent of the law is a good one. It provides the innocent babies with some protection and it provides the girl/woman an opportunity to do the right thing when she knows she can't provide the necessary support to the baby.

Yes - ideally - pregnancy shouldn't happen unless there are two committed parents - I know...but that isn't my point here.

Besides defining the age of a child, the other issue I keep seeing is the age limit of allowing babies to be dropped off to be THREE DAYS after a child is born.

Somebody needs to get real about that one. Basically unless a woman (girl) decides in the 72 hours after delivering a baby that she can't handle the baby, that would be the only time she could safely give her baby up without fear of prosecution for abandonment.

I could see three weeks to three months but seriously not three days. I can't speak from an "expert" point of view. Just one of woman who has given birth and had friends and family go through childbirth and all its complications.. Each experience is different and each circumstance is different.

I know there are some of you out there that can't understand abandoning a baby. I am right there with you. But I am realistic enough to know there are babies and birth mothers that need this protection.

I can only hope our legislators can compassionately give those babies and their birth mothers better than a 72 hour time limit on their futures.

Comments
View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

  • Three days? I hadn't heard that so I'm glad you made reference to it. It will take the legislature longer than 72 hours to decide on the language, etc. on this issue. It seems a little irrational to make an assumption that ALL mothers (or grandparents or fathers depending on the circumstances) can make that kind of a decision that quickly. While some mothers will have contemplated their decision before giving birth and act accordingly, there are others who won't know until the reality sets in. In many ways it is the mother who takes some time to carefully consider what to do next that stands a chance to act to the best welfare of the child.

    I, personally, could not fathom abandoning a child. Circumstances have caused me to understand the true gift my only teenager is and how fortunate I am to have him. But the reality is there are so many other families who's circumstances are not the same and to judge based on our experiences only is absurd.

    -- Posted by interested_in-law on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 2:01 PM

  • The way the law is, as I understand, is that any 'child' (under majority age) may be left for protective action. What, on earth, is wrong with that????? Are we so calassed (deliberately misspelled) that we feel a young person, less than majority age, should be rejected, and not helped, because they, I presume, are too old to be 'cute and cuddly?' If so, shame on us.

    Perhaps someone realized that we cannot arrest, convict, and jail, anyone who releases their children to public care. Wow, we wouldn't want to have a 'non-way' to not be able to imprison a person.

    Sorry folks, I am concerned, when our governing body seems to be more interested in punishing a person, than saving a life, be it physical, spiritual, psychological, or social.

    If a person is still a child, by law, then the law should have facility to care for that child should the parent not have resources to do so themselves. To make the decision a serious matter, perhaps the law should say that once given away, the parent has no right to regain custody, so-as-to preclude any frivolous use of the Safe Haven Law.

    What-ever, three days to make a life-changing decision is absolutely wrong to expect, when the lawmakers cannot accomplish that type miracle.

    That's all, I'm done. Think on it folks.

    In service to Messiah, His Shalom on one and all. Arley Steinhour

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 4:06 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: