About a month ago I wrote a letter to the editor of Foster’s Daily Democrat (Dover, NH). based on an earlier blog. It was was published today–and well worth repeating.
Fosters Daily Democrat, March 13, 2007
Wendelboe and Woods inconsistent
To the editor:
Rep. Fran Wendelboe and former state Rep. Phyllis Woods have gotten their socks in a bunch over HB 184. The bill would repeal the state’s 2003 parental notification law that requires doctors to notify at least one parent 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor.
The other day the two Republicans tried to pull the notification law out of the dumpster, insisting that parents need a right to a “say” in their minor daughter’s decision to undergo an abortion.
Woods claimed parental notification is a compelling state interest necessary to protect “minors against their own immaturity.”
In her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Wendelboe favored “good medical care for our daughters” and groused that minors “can’t get a tattoo or even an aspirin from the school nurse, but they can have a secret medical procedure without their parents’ knowledge.”
Wendelboe and Woods weren’t always so concerned about immature decisions, parental notification, and good medical care for New Hampshire’s daughters.
In 2003, while they were busy saving fetuses, Woods sponsored, and Wendelboe backed, HB 104, the New Hampshire safe haven newborn abandonment law that encourages teenagers to hide pregnancies from their parents, forgo prenatal care, give birth alone and in secret, and then anonymously drop-off their newborns at a hospital, fire or police station, or even a church with no questions asked — and return home to mom and dad as if nothing has happened.
What kind of twisted legal system requires a teenager to inform her parents if she wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but encourages her to keep that same unwanted pregnancy a secret, carry to term, give birth alone and dangerously, and anonymously abandon her baby?
If Wendelboe and Woods are genuinely dedicated to parental notification and good medical care, they should demand that their safe haven law be repealed immediately. After all, don’t parents have a right to a “say” in their minor daughters’ reproductive decisions?
Marley Elizabeth Greiner
Executive Chair
Bastard Nation
Columbus, Ohio
Editor’s note: Bastard Nation is an adoptee rights organization that opposes safe haven laws.
**********
NOTE: Woods and Wendelbow were vocal opponents of SB 335 which restored the right of New Hampshire’s adoptees to access their original birth certificates.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled extensively on these types of parental notification laws. My understanding–and I’m not an expert on it–is that the state must allow for a judicial bypass where the minor can show sufficient maturity or that she would be at risk for harm if parents are notified. In any case, the law will be challenged immediately, and the state courts will have to follow the Supreme Court precedents.
Once again you are on a total disinformation campaign, based solely on fraud.
Not once has any Baby Safe Haven law encouraged any young woman to hide her pregnancy, not seek medical care and deliver in secret.
In New Hampshire there hasn’t been a single newborn surrendered under their three year old law. And there hasn’t been a single newborn abandonment because the New England Baby Safe Haven hotline has received calls that lead to proper counseling that could lead to parental or adoption programs.
Everyone, but you, knows that Baby Safe Haven laws are a last resort in crisis situations that in far to many cases has lead to death of newborns, incarceration of young women, stripping of medical and family heritages of abandoned newborns, and despair for families.
With 99% of the US population covered by these laws, close to 1,000 safely surrendered newborns, and countless women referred to adoption and parenting programs through hotlines you call for an elimination of these laws, give me a break!
We applaud Fran Wendelboe and Phyllis Woods for their proper legislative actions, compassion and courage — that you lack.
Glad nobody listens to your disinformation crap!
Ms
=============
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hudsonlitchfieldnews.com/images/old/default/defaul74.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hudsonlitchfieldnews.com/archives/20030613.htm&h=331&w=504&sz=18&hl=en&start=32&tbnid=fdkfTGWviU2NdM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsafe%2Bhaven%2Bbaby%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN%26edition%3Dus
Baby Safe Haven Law – New Hampshire
by Stephanie J. Serrano
Gina Pease (in purple above), wife of Hudson Police Department Captain William Pease, successfully led New Hampshire in the implementation of the Baby Safe Haven bill.
On May 5, Governor Craig Benson signed into law HB104, the Baby Safe Haven bill. The bill, which is now in effect, creates an exception to the crime of child endangerment and implements procedures for a hospital or safe haven to assume temporary care of an abandoned child.
New Hampshire now joins 45 other states in passing this law, which puts our priority on the safety of a newborn baby. It allows for babies up to seven days old to be given unharmed to a person at a designated Safe Haven location. This can be done anonymously and without fear of prosecution. Babies can be surrendered to a hospital, fire or police station, church or church building, or by calling 911 to arrange for an alternative location.
The hope is that women who are faced with a crisis pregnancy and birth will seek the support and help that is available for her and her baby. However, if she should choose not to take this path, there is now an alternative to unsafe and potentially fatal abandonment of a human life.
The purpose of this bill is to help keep babies alive. Safe Haven laws recognize the problem of mothers in panic who go to extreme measures to get rid of their newborn.
June 13, 2003
Now it’s fraud. Keep ramping it up, Ms. You certainly love to make fools of yourselves, don’t you. Legal scholars are taking a very close look at your law, and they don’t like what they see. A beg-a-thon may soon be in order.
While we’re speaking of money, whose payroll are you on?
If baby dumping is a last resort, then why are hospitals in San Antonio, Texas telling women who go in for delivery and say they are interested in an adoption plan being told, “you don’t have to bother with that. You can just safe haven it.” And I got that from the horse’s mouth.
What, pray tell do you think, “no shame, no blame, no name” and “nobody will ever have to know you had this child,” implies? I’m sure it’s a shock to you, but not everybody who uses your baby anonymizer calls a hotline, or has any idea of the consequences of what they’re doing.
What would you tell the girl in Texas who is the proud mother of a vegetable? She believed your propaganda. She figured she could hide her pregnancy, give birth alone and drop off the baby. Well, it didn’t turn out that way. She nearly died and her kid is severely mentally and physically disabled. Nice show!
I sure would like to know what happened to Christy Hartzler, too. Any idea? Her fate makes little sense outside of the context of your law.
You haven’t even heard the first shot on this yet.
“And I got that from the horse’s mouth.”
We didn’t think that Mr. Ed was part of the Child and Social Services Agency in Texas. Once again you’re using fraudulent data-toids and tactics to spew your heritage and medical record stripping agenda.
“Payroll?” Wouldn’t you like to know. “You certainly love to make fools of yourselves…”
Remember 99% of the US population has a Baby Safe Haven law, and there never has been a valid attempt to overturn a single element of a statute by you or any other “group” like yours. So much for “scholars.”
Go begging all you want.
Ms
The pro baby dump mouthpieces repeated yet again:
“With 99% of the US population covered by these laws. . “
You just love to trot that out every chance you get don’t you?
That’s okay the backlash has just begun – better grab your life preserver.
Asking who’s bankrolling you is a legitimate question which you’ve refused to answer for years.
I looked a few days ago, and I still can’t find Baby Safe Haven (Mass or New England) incorporated in Massachusetts. You claim to raise money. Do you have a tax ID number? Are you using AMT-COH or some other non-profit as a pass-through? There’s nothing illegal or wrong about that, but people do like to know where money comes and goes.
It’s always amusing when you claim that nobody listens to me, since not one single adoption reform organization in the country supports baby dumping; nor do numerous child welfare agencies. How do you explain that?
anonymous morrissey wrote:
“Everyone, but you, knows that Baby Safe Haven laws are a last resort in crisis situations that in far to many cases has lead to death of newborns, incarceration of young women, stripping of medical and family heritages of abandoned newborns, and despair for families.”
I asked you a few years ago and you declined to respond, so I’ll ask you again: Has the number of prosecutions and incarcerations of women who’ve abandoned their infants risen, fallen or remained constant nationwide since baby dump laws have been enacted? Are the sentences of those successfully prosecuted more or less severe than before?
To Ms. and yes I do know who you are:
As a priest I have the highest respect for human life. As an adult adoptee and the father of three adotped sons I am keenly aware of the negative impact being denyed access to the very document, one’s original birth certificate, that defines one’s entrance into the human family as well as one’s biological family. While enlightened people recognize the damage the closed records systme of adoption does to adoptees and are fighting to overturn such laws that are the consequence of a failed social experiment predicated on eugenics, Safe Havens perpetuate the same damage to all children abandoned to them.
From this perspective Safe Havens are an abomination. Whatever positive value they have, and from my research it is minimal at best, is far outweighed by the negative impact children surrendered via Safe Havens will experience throughout their lives. As a consequence, Safe Havens are an immoral instituion pursuant to the Principle of Proportionality which is central to both Catholic and Protestant moral theology. Additionally, Safe Havens fail the test of moral theology when the Principle of Utilitarianism, again central to both Catholic and Protestand moral theology, is applied. Thus, in theological language Safe Havens are a moral evil as opposed to a moral grace.
I have no doubt that you sincerely believe in Safe Havens and are following your conscience as the engine behind them. However, that does not make you or Safe Havens either right or the best way for society to address the problem of abandoned children. In fact, it is my belief that Safe Havens are absolutely the wrong way to address this problem.
The best way to address the problem is to compare America’s rates of teenage and unintended pregnancy, STDs, and abandoned children with those of Sweeden as one example. When you do you will find that in Sweeden teenage and unintended pregnancy, STDs, and abandoned children are almost non-existant. The obvious question is, “Why?”
The answer is that in Sweeden beginning in the first grade all children, no parental “opt-out” allowed, are given meaningful sex education. By the 7th grade every child in Sweeden has been taught the complete anatomy and physiology of human sexuality and procreation.
Sweeden has completely free medical care for everyone and at the age of 13 all teenagers are able to go to a drugstore and pick up a handful of condoms without question. At age 13 teenage girls can go to a gynocologist and are given whatever birth control method they choose. Parents have no legal right to interfere with their children’s use of birth control or sexual activity.
So, here we have a clear contrast between America that sees sex, birth control, and sexual activity by teenagers as something dangerous that must be denied. To that end conservatives have been successful in mandating “Abstinence-Only-Before-Marriage” programs in public schools that teach young people both misinformation and patently incorrect informaiton regarding human sexuality and birth control. That these programs do this and do not work has been proven by the Texas Tech study as well as several other studies.
The consequence for America in deamonizing teenage sexual activity and promoting “Abstinence-Only-Before-Marriage” programs is that America has the hightst rate of teenage and unintended pregnancies, STDs, and abandoned children of any nation in the industrialized Western World.
If America adotped the Sweedish model Safe Havens would be seen for what they truly are: simply the latest aspect of America’s failure to embrace the reality of human sexuality. This failure is what creates the problems of teenage and unintended pregnancy, rampent STDs, and is responsible for the misery of woman who feel they have no choice but to abandon their child.
In closing I must make a personal comment about you. I have followed your efforts to convince states to implement Safe Havens since you began your effort to do so. While you have every right to do so, I find your methods and personal attacks on people who hold an opposing view, especially Marley Greiner, to be disgusting. It is one thing to disagree regarding the merit or lack thereof of Safe Havens. It is an entirely differnt matter when you use made-up “statistics” to “prove” your point of view. Perhaps this is why you refuse to cite sources that can be verified becasue you know that your “statistics” are a lie.
If you choose to respond to this post do not expect that I will respond. I do not have the time to blog. The only reason I posted here is because of your demand and begavior when your were rejected to be made a part of Marley Greiner’s presentation at the AAC Convocation.
As the Dixie Chicks said of George W. Bush they were ashamed they came from the same state, as a native of Massachusetts I am ashamed that we come from the same state. Massachusettes is taught in history books as the cradle of liberty and justice for all people. I cherish that heritage and lament that you do not.
“Has the number of prosecutions and incarcerations of women who’ve abandoned their infants risen, fallen or remained constant nationwide since baby dump laws have been enacted?”
We speak for New England. And here in New England the numbers of incarcerations and even investigations has dropped dramatically, to near zero. It’s done a complete about-face since the Baby Safe Haven laws have been passed.
“Jack said…
To Ms. and yes I do know who you are:
As a priest I have the highest respect for human life.”
We’ll let the Archdiocese of Boston, the Catholic Conference of Massachusetts and Mass Citizens for Life ( as well as NARAL) who all heavily backed both the passage and implementation of all of New England’s Baby Safe Haven laws, speak for themselves.
We’ll repeat this again, only Ms. G and her BN cohorts are for the heritage and medical background stripping of newborns, which they wish to accomplish through the elimination of Baby Safe Haven laws.
The facts, actual data, and conclusions of all research here in MA back is that more then 3/4s of newborns abandoned before passage of MA Baby Safe Haven had heritage stripping, or made useless by death.
Since passage all 30 women counseled into adoption, or parenting plans have 100% of heritage backgrounds for the released at birth newborns.
All five safely surrendered newborns, due to the Baby Safe Haven law in MA, have medical backgrounds, three of five have heritages due to a post surrender adoption plan, the other two are confidential at this time. All five have had the opportunity to give this information due to immunity from prosecution.
Only BN is calling for the elimination of any of New England’s Baby Safe Haven laws, and returning back to 3/4s of newborns stripped of medical backgrounds and heritages.
It would be a disaster to listen to such fraudulent disinformation.
Ms
“We’ll repeat this again, only Ms. G and her BN cohorts are for the heritage and medical background stripping of newborns, which they wish to accomplish through the elimination of Baby Safe Haven laws.”
Remind me again why no child placing agency in the state of Massachusetts supports your law?
And do please, site your source for your information on the 5 dump cases. (Isn’t this all supposed to be top secret?) Is this the same source that claims that the per capita rate of baby abandonment hasn’t changed in 3000 years? Or the same source that claims I wrote the Evan B. Donaldson report? Or the same source that claimed Harvard was going to fire Charlotte Moore for opposing baby dumping?
“Has the number of prosecutions and incarcerations of women who’ve abandoned their infants risen, fallen or remained constant nationwide since baby dump laws have been enacted?”
We speak for New England. And here in New England the numbers of incarcerations and even investigations has dropped dramatically, to near zero. It’s done a complete about-face since the Baby Safe Haven laws have been passed.
Do you have a cite for that? Excuse me for not accepting your anecdotal remarks, bu I was hoping for soming a bit more substantial from folks claiming to be experts on safe havens and abandonment. Also, I thought you spoke for baby dumps no matter what state or region they were proposed, at least you have consistently in the past. You do serve as an officer of the Safe Haven Alliance, a national organization, don’t you? Don’t they have anything more substantial in the way of data about arrests and prosecutions of women who have abandoned? If not, why not?
Yet again those pathetic liars from Lexington trot out their disinformation and self serving drivel. Today’s post is especially entertaining and yet simultaneously disturbing in view of their citation of the Archdiocese of BOSTON’s endorsement of safe havens! If there was ever an institution less well qualified to “endorse” anything having to do w/ children is it the archdiocese that was for years the epicenter of child abuse in the United States.
One can only echo the writer’s question about how is paying these purveyors of exploitation and misery. So, Jean, Mike, cough it up! Who pays your bills? Where do you get your money? Disclose once and for all whose water you are carrying. You are such completely self serving liars and hypocrites. So just shut up. You are jokes – both of you. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You are just interested in aggrandizing yourselves.
Take a hint from your little escapade in Wakefield – or should we say your attempted escapade. You are not experts in anything. Beat it!