Self-fulfilling prophecy

Nebraska lawmakers are in dire need of a clue. And probably a safe haven from angry voters.

Most states have “safe haven” laws, which, according to childwelfare.gov, allow “mothers in crisis to safely relinquish their babies to designated” providers. The babies “are protected and provided with medical care until a permanent home is found.” But before we get to Nebraska, let’s look at the quote in that last sentence, ok? It seems to me that there are three important parties: babies, mothers, and designated providers.

First, newborns are normally the focus of these laws, and as of July 2007, most states’ safe haven laws stated, “infants who are 72 hours old or younger may be relinquished.” Ok, that’s three days. Other states’ safe haven laws allow the baby’s age to be any where from five days to one year.

Next, most states with these laws allow either parent to relinquish a child, though four states have said that only the mother may do so. There are also states, which say that “an agent of the parent” may relinquish, and six states didn’t specify who may relinquish.

Third, what are designated locations? In all states’ laws, hospitals are designated locations, but most states have also so named police stations, fire stations and/or emergency medical services providers.

∞

Safe haven laws also generally allow the parent to remain anonymous and to be shielded from prosecution for abandonment or neglect in exchange for surrendering the baby to a safe haven.

∞

So we have a parent who is in crisis and who has a newborn baby. S/he does not have the resources, or is not equipped, to care for a baby. Ok, let’s take that at face value and not judge. They care enough to take the child to a designated provider and not-- and this right here is exactly why safe haven laws are passed: NOT put the baby in a dumpster. The parent is abiding by the law. Remember, we aren’t passing judgment on the parent. We do not know the circumstances, and that’s really not the direction I want to go…

∞

In a perfect world, everyone who wanted babies would be able to have them, and no one who didn’t want babies would have them. But we do not live in a perfect world, and all in all, I think that safe haven laws are good because of the above baby/dumpster scenario. That happens all too often, and it’s heartbreaking. But again, that’s not where we’re going.

∞∞∞

On July 18, Nebraska’s new safe haven law went into effect. That law goes way beyond babies and allows the abandonment of any child under age 19. And Nebraska’s law allows for anyone, not just a parent, to relinquish a child.

And that is exactly what has happened. Google the key words, and you’ll see: Over the weekend of September 13, two boys, age 15 and 11, were the first to be relinquished. A 13-year-old girl was dropped off at a hospital a week later.

More recently, a man “left all nine of his children” at a hospital on September 24, TheOmahaChannel.com reported. The ages of the children ranged from one to 17. The Lincoln JournalStar has reported on a 12-year-old boy who was walked into a hospital by his grandmother on October 5, and a 14-year-old girl who was relinquished to a provider on October 7.

∞

Again, I don’t want us to judge the relinquishers, though I do find it hard to wrap my head around the idea of having nine kids (one as recent as a year ago!) without taking steps to prevent it. (Just say no, for crying out loud!)

∞∞∞

As much as this news saddens me, the actions of Nebraska’s legislators absolutely infuriates me. According to msnbc.com, the lawmakers “were afraid this would happen.” Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Yes, they are looking at the law again, but if I lived in Nebraska, I think I would vote against everyone running for re-election who voted to pass this idiotic version of a safe haven law.

∞

Now, could someone help me down from this soapbox?