Attn. Marley: baby dumped in Brooklyn, NY, from NY Times
Roberta
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/nyregion/17MBRF3.html
BROOKLYN: NEWBORN FOUND IN TRASH BIN A baby boy was found in a trash can in Bay
Ridge about 6 p.m. yesterday, the police said. The baby, who weighs seven
pounds and is 21 inches long, was found in a box at the top of a trash can near
301 100th Street. He was taken to Lutheran Medical Center, where he was in good
condition last night. The police do not believe he was wrapped in anything. He
was found in a side alley by a resident. The mother has not been found,
Detective Cheryl Cox said. A state law passed in 2000 allows people to take
newborns who would otherwise be abandoned to a hospital, police station or
firehouse without facing prosecution. The state sponsors an information number
for those who need to know where to take such infants: (866) 505-7233. Tina
Kelley (NYT)
Roberta
mom to Juliette, 6, adopted 2/4/98 from China
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: ro...@aol.comnojunk (Roberta)
>Date: Wed, Apr 17, 2002 3:30 PM
>Message-id: <20020417153017...@mb-fn.aol.com>
>
>BTW, this is a very upper-middle-class part of Brooklyn.
>
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/nyregion/17MBRF3.html
>
>BROOKLYN: NEWBORN FOUND IN TRASH BIN A baby boy was found in a trash can
>in Bay
>Ridge about 6 p.m. yesterday, the police said. The baby, who weighs seven
>pounds and is 21 inches long, was found in a box at the top of a trash can
>near
>301 100th Street. He was taken to Lutheran Medical Center, where he was
>in good
>condition last night. The police do not believe he was wrapped in anything.
>He
>was found in a side alley by a resident. The mother has not been found,
Gosh, let's hope they find her soon so she can be spared the horror of losing
her baby to adoption! I'm sure she must be worried sick about him, don't you
think?
Ghoulagirl.
"He went after her like she was made out of ham!"
- From "Best In Show"
Palms2pines
>>in Bay
>>Ridge about 6 p.m. yesterday, the police said. The baby, who weighs seven
>>pounds and is 21 inches long, was found in a box at the top of a trash can
>>near
>>301 100th Street. He was taken to Lutheran Medical Center, where he was
>>in good
>>condition last night. The police do not believe he was wrapped in anything.
>>He
>>was found in a side alley by a resident. The mother has not been found,
>
> Gosh, let's hope they find her soon so she can be spared the horror of
>losing
>her baby to adoption! I'm sure she must be worried sick about him, don't you
>think?
>
>Ghoulagirl.
>
What a cruel assumption, Ghoul! That one true mother probably came out of her
drunken-stoned-crack-whore stupor this morning and declared, "Oh, my! I seem
to have misplaced my child! I wonder where I left him!" How dare you assume
this is a case of heartless abandonment.
P2P
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: palms...@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)
>Date: Wed, Apr 17, 2002 4:14 PM
>Message-id: <20020417161405...@mb-da.aol.com>
Golly, you're right! I don't know how I failed to consider such a likely
scenario.
How dare you assume
>this is a case of heartless abandonment.
I must have been having one of my silly spells [1] or something.
Ghoulagirl.
[1] Not to be confused with Melinda's posts, which are full of silly spelling.
Johnny
state either. I wonder where Bill Pee was when this baby was born? Having a
cocktail? Consorting with a concubine? Both?
--
Johnny
"Roberta" <ro...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020417153017...@mb-fn.aol.com...
Marley Greiner
"Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote in message
news:yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01...
> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD, or any
other
> state either. I wonder where Bill Pee was when this baby was born? Having
a
> cocktail? Consorting with a concubine? Both?
Actually, I think he's at the NCFA conference.
Marley
Jackie C
<maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote in message
>news:yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01...
>> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD, or any
>other
>> state either. I wonder where Bill Pee was when this baby was born? Having
>a
>> cocktail? Consorting with a concubine? Both?
>
>Actually, I think he's at the NCFA conference.
>
>Marley
I thought he retired.
Jackie
Ronald Morgan
jda...@newsguy.com wrote on 4/18/02 6:32 PM:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:42:24 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
> <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote in message
>> news:yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01...
>>> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD, or any
>> other
>>> state either. I wonder where Bill Pee was when this baby was born? Having
>> a
>>> cocktail? Consorting with a concubine? Both?
>>
>> Actually, I think he's at the NCFA conference.
>>
>> Marley
>
>
> I thought he retired.
>
>
> Jackie
Rust never sleeps...
Ron
Johnny
about what he wants, regardless of how it effects the lives of others.
Now where's that sandblaster.... there's some rust that needs removing...
--
Johnny
"pb..." <woodl...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gcfvbu0j8623l1eaf...@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:32:38 -0400, Jackie C <jda...@newsguy.com> calmly
exclaimed:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:42:24 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
><maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote in message
>>news:yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01...
>>> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD,
>>>or any other state either. I wonder where Bill Pee was when this
>>>baby was born? Having a cocktail? Consorting with a concubine?
>>>Both?
>>
>>Actually, I think he's at the NCFA conference.
>>
>>Marley
>
>
>I thought he retired.
>
>Jackie
He stepped down as Pres/CEO of NCFA...perhaps you've seen his sig line?
Bill Pierce
piercefo...@AOL.com
check out www.iavaan.org or www.adoptionmedicalnews.com
Self-explanatory. As Ron has already replied to you, "Rust never sleeps."
pb...
"...yet in thy dark streets shineth the everlasting Light..."
http://www.ourfm-cfidsworld.org/
http://www.ibar.com/unlocking/contribute.htm
http://helpafghanwomen.com/
Jackie C
<rhyz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I thought he retired.
>>
>>
>> Jackie
>
>Rust never sleeps...
Damn..
Jackie
Jackie C
>In article <yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01>,
> "Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
>
>> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD, or any other
>> state either.
>
>Define "work."
>
>If just one woman choose a hospital over a dumpster, the law has worked.
>
>You guys are so fucked up over this.
What of the woman who gets the message that it is okay to have her
baby in a closet? That it is okay to not seek medical care for herself
and her baby?
IMO if women could easily access free unbiased medical care that is
totally private from the people she does not want to know about the
baby..then there would be far fewer dumpster babies..
Jackie
Michelle
>In article <yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01>,
> "Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
>
>> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD, or any other
>> state either.
>
>Define "work."
>
>If just one woman choose a hospital over a dumpster, the law has worked.
>
>You guys are so fucked up over this.
>
>- Don
In theory, yes. The laws are good if they save even one child.
In reality, this is not the case. The laws are not so good because,
in addition to the reasons Marley and Ron (and others) have posted
previously, they are stopgaps.
The problem with stopgaps is that while they are intended as interim
measures to fix a specific problem until a better answer comes along,
in the world of legislation (at whatever level) this rarely happens.
The problem's been fixed, so they move on. And this becomes the way
things work.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for saving babies. But if we don't do it
right the first time, we're likely to be stuck with the knee-jerk law
for the forseeable future. And as far as safe haven laws are
concerned, IMHO, that's not all too wonderful a thought.
Michelle
Marley Greiner
"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
news:gimme-5DAA1F....@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <c0s3cusnhtft7htto...@4ax.com>,
> Michelle <celti...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:52:09 -0700, Don <gimme@a~break.net> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01>,
> > > "Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD, or any
other
> > >> state either.
> > >
> > >Define "work."
> > >
> > >If just one woman choose a hospital over a dumpster, the law has
worked.
> > >
> > >You guys are so fucked up over this.
> > >
> > >- Don
> >
> > In theory, yes. The laws are good if they save even one child.
> >
> > In reality, this is not the case. The laws are not so good because,
> > in addition to the reasons Marley and Ron (and others) have posted
> > previously, they are stopgaps.
>
>
> > The problem with stopgaps is that while they are intended as interim
> > measures to fix a specific problem until a better answer comes along,
> > in the world of legislation (at whatever level) this rarely happens.
> > The problem's been fixed, so they move on. And this becomes the way
> > things work.
>
> anyone else cares.
>
> Let's face it, we have some people around here with some pretty
> specialized grievences that are of no interest to the vast majority of
> the population.
>
> > Don't get me wrong. I'm all for saving babies. But if we don't do it
> > right the first time, we're likely to be stuck with the knee-jerk law
> > for the forseeable future. And as far as safe haven laws are
> > concerned, IMHO, that's not all too wonderful a thought.
>
> dozen...out of hundreds of thousands of births during the same period?
>
> Don't you see how stupid this hand wringing looks?
>
> - Don
Since it's our little secret, Don, nobody knows. My summer project is to
figure out the sates sttae by state from what I have, but I don't have all
the cases. These things aren't tracked in most states.
Marley
Marley Greiner
> In article
> <sgnw8.37700$Rw2.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Since it's our little secret, Don, nobody knows. My summer project is
to
all
> > the cases. These things aren't tracked in most states.
>
> period.
>
> - Don
Don, that's the point. These laws aren't even needed . The number or
abandonments and infanticides is miniscule The ones that do occur are being
exploited as an "epidemic" by certain parts of the adoption industry as cog
in their own secret/closed adoption agenda. Undocumented infants put
anonymous relinquishment into the law. Undocumented infants are gold to the
black market
Marley
rkbose
> > Okay, but make sure you know how many births occured during the same
> > period.
> >
> > - Don
>
> Don, that's the point. These laws aren't even needed . The number or
> abandonments and infanticides is miniscule The ones that do occur are being
> exploited as an "epidemic" by certain parts of the adoption industry as cog
> in their own secret/closed adoption agenda. Undocumented infants put
> anonymous relinquishment into the law. Undocumented infants are gold to the
> black market
>
> Marley
Marley, this is going over my head. Can you spell it out? How are a
handful of anonymous infants going to be gold to anyone?
Rupa
rkbose
>
<re safe haven laws>
> What of the woman who gets the message that it is okay to have her
> baby in a closet? That it is okay to not seek medical care for herself
> and her baby?
>
> IMO if women could easily access free unbiased medical care that is
> totally private from the people she does not want to know about the
> baby..then there would be far fewer dumpster babies..
Consider a person like Tarin. She did not seek care for herself for 8.5
months. It wasn't because of safe-haven laws, AFAIK.
It's true that if women could get free anonymous medical care, there
would be fewer dumpster babies. But that would be pretty much the same
as safe haven laws...the French "Birth under the name of X" or whatever
it's actually called.
(I personally think safe haven laws affect so few that it matters not if
they exist or not.)
Rupa
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 04/17/2002 3:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Johnny one-note asked in the post:
> I wonder where Bill Pee was when this baby was born? Having a
>cocktail? Consorting with a concubine? Both?
Do you cook up stories about aliens from outer space consorting with Hillary
Clinton for The National Enquirer or other tabloids in your saner moments?
Bill Pierce
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 04/17/2002 3:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>Actually, I think he's at the NCFA conference.
>
>Marley
Nope, I was out of the city and did not attend the NCFA conference. As you
know, Marley, I stepped down from NCFA and it has always seemed to me that it
was unfair to a new CEO if the former CEO was still around, offering to people
with various motives an excuse to create division.
Your serious comment deserved a factual answer.
Bill Pierce
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 04/19/2002 10:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>His user name on AOL (Anti-Christ Online) pretty much says it all. It's
>about what he wants, regardless of how it effects the lives of others.
It's right nice of Johnny to give me the opportunity to explain where that user
name came from. Since I enjoy exercising my First Amendment rights but I also
do not want to necessarily associate my views with those of the various
organizations with which I have some sort of affiliations, the signature line
is meant to convey one message only: the comments are those from Pierce, who is
representing only himself. If there is any interest in knowing what I have to
say wearing other "hats," venture over to www.iavaan.org or subscribe to
www.adoptionmedicalnews.com.
Bill Pierce
piercefo...@AOL.com
Marley Greiner
"Pierceforhimself" <piercefo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020421114203...@mb-cr.aol.com...
Thanks for the clarification. I figured you were there. If I were you it
would be impossible to stay away, but then we know I'm just a snoopy
"adoptee." I was sure, however you, were not out cavorting with a
concubine as suggested. Be glad you weren't here in Indianapolis for the
latest incarnation of Joe Goebels.
Marley
Marley
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 04/20/2002 7:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>Marley, this is going over my head. Can you spell it out? How are a
>handful of anonymous infants going to be gold to anyone?
>
>Rupa
>
Rupa, what Marley is saying is simply a more lucid and grown-up version of poor
Patty's posts. There are those, on a.a and elsewhere, that see the Safe Haven
laws as either something dreamed up by a vast Right-Center-Left Wing
Conspiracty or a plot by Black Market Baby Sellers who will sneak into
hospitals or barge into public social service agencies, sweep away all those
dozens of babies, and auction them off to the higher bidder.
The laws have already saved some babies' lives. The laws have already kept
some women from committing crimes that they would otherwise do prison time for.
These realities really anger those, whether Marley or Ron or their disciples,
or the heads-in-the-sand social work sorority, who want no changes in practices
that have failed babies and women for several decades.
Many of those who oppose these laws have other agendas. And some have no idea
of the many challenges faced by women in the USA, including those of minority
ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds, who have reasons for needing an
anonymous, legal way to turn their babies over safely to others.
Or, in other words, the opposition to Safe Haven laws is not logical. And no
amount of reasoned discussion on a.a or elsewhere is apt to bring them around.
Bill Pierce
piercefo...@AOL.com
Johnny
hasn't been seen here on alt.adoption.... and probably will not be anytime
soon. ;-)
--
Johnny
"Pierceforhimself" <piercefo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020421113923...@mb-cr.aol.com...
SusanDyne
>Date: 4/21/2002 11:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020421115949...@mb-cr.aol.com>
>Or, in other words, the opposition to Safe Haven laws is not logical. And no
>amount of reasoned discussion on a.a or elsewhere is apt to bring them
>around.
Other than people should be encouraged to take responsibility for their
actions. BUT, I do agree -- if ONE baby or one woman is saved, it's enough to
counter everything that is inherently wrong with these laws.
Susan
Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.
Ronald Morgan
piercefo...@aol.com wrote on 4/21/02 8:59 AM:
>
> The laws have already saved some babies' lives. The laws have already kept
> some women from committing crimes that they would otherwise do prison time
> for.
> These realities really anger those, whether Marley or Ron or their disciples,
> or the heads-in-the-sand social work sorority, who want no changes in
> practices
> that have failed babies and women for several decades.
Just a note: The US social welfare matrix, including the adoption industry
of which Bill was/is an active participant, has for all its faults and
benefits managed to bring infant abandonment from true epidemic proportions
in the early part of the 1900's to a statistically insignificant trickle
today.
>
> Many of those who oppose these laws have other agendas. And some have no idea
> of the many challenges faced by women in the USA, including those of minority
> ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds, who have reasons for needing an
> anonymous, legal way to turn their babies over safely to others.
Bill, please quit kissing Rupa's ass, we all know she's a bright light. How
many of the safe haven babies are there due to ethnic, cultural, or
religious reasons? Can you say, or are simply blowing seductive smoke up
Rupa's patootie? I don't see you championing female circumcision, but I
suppose that's next, you ol' cultural relativist you...
>
> Or, in other words, the opposition to Safe Haven laws is not logical. And no
> amount of reasoned discussion on a.a or elsewhere is apt to bring them around.
We don't accept your mantra, that doesn't make us illogical.
Ron
>
> Bill Pierce
> piercefo...@AOL.com
Johnny
them how about rescinding the anonymity fallacy that has failed women and
babies for decades and caused more harm than good in the long run. While it
might have seemed like a good idea at the time it was conceived, given the
fact that there is no basis in any law, anywhere, promises of
confidentiality will not stand up in a court of law. And yet you continue
to avoid the fact that there is no documentation to this promise. So these
women are lied to in order to get their babies to be put up for sale to the
highest bidder. If this is not the case, then why does it cost between 10
and 30 thousand dollars to adopt? Is this the going rate for a human being
now?
--
Johnny
"Pierceforhimself" <piercefo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020421115949...@mb-cr.aol.com...
Kjs668
>Date: 4/20/2002 5:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <54n3cusjc7gnv2oor...@4ax.com>
I totally agree with you.
kj
Rhiannon
It's not the miniscule number of anonymous infants that disturbs me,
so much as the legal precedent that these laws create.
A child surrendered anonymously is essentially a "non-person",
without identity or entitlement to legal rights until such a time as
he/she becomes "legitimized" by adoption. Until that time, the child
has claim on no one, nor vice versa. Effectively, the child can be
considered as a "product".
It seems to me that once the precedent for anonymous relinquishment
has been established, it opens up loopholes for all kinds of nefarious
dealings, that remain *within* the law, and that can be transacted
without consequence to the adults involved.
Rhiannon
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 11:39 AM
>Message-id: <20020421113923...@mb-cr.aol.com>
ROR!
Ghoulagirl.
"He went after her like she was made out of ham!"
- From "Best In Show"
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 1:48 PM
>Message-id: <20020421134820...@mb-fb.aol.com>
>
>> Jackie C jda...@newsguy.com
>>Date: 4/20/2002 5:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <54n3cusjc7gnv2oor...@4ax.com>
snip
>>IMO if women could easily access free unbiased medical care that is
>>totally private from the people she does not want to know about the
>>baby..then there would be far fewer dumpster babies..
>I totally agree with you.
I don't. Do you really think that lack of access to medical care is what's
making girls/women toss their babies into dumpsters like garbage? Or do you
think perhaps it's possible that they see the dumpsters as a means of getting
rid of something they don't want, i.e. their babies? After all, what is the
purpose of a dumpster? Isn't it where you dump your trash?
Kjs668
Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 7:25 PM
Message-id: <20020421192501...@mb-dh.aol.com>
snip
Ghoulagirl.
>>
If a woman will drop her kid off in a dumpster in the first place, what makes
any of us think that she's going to bother heading to the hospital. what if
somebody sees her and tells her mother?? (hey, if you're hormonal and paranoid)
IMO (which is probably wrong...) these women are so fucked up about being
pregnant that I doubt they would have the wherewithal to go to the hospital
rather than a dorm bathroom--or if she's all fucked up on crack--a nearby
garbage can.
As an adoptee, I feel I should have the right to know my genes--even if they do
suck!
As a woman--I think no woman should be ashamed to have an unplanned pregnancy,
no matter how they choose to deal with it--ie: through abortion, relinquishment
or the other.
To answer your question--I don't think that lack of access to medical care is
what makes girls dump their babies. I think you're probably right in that
it's just a way for them to get rid of something they don't want.
kj
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 04/21/2002 9:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Good ole Ron wrote:
>
>Bill, please quit kissing Rupa's---, we all know she's a bright light.
It is possible that some of those on a.a, even those of us who are not
regulars, had some familiarity with other cultures, ethnic groups, religions
and nationalities before the Safe Haven controversy arrived. Some of us, Ron,
had the benefit of undergraduate education in the so-called liberal arts where
we studied rather broadly. While such meanderings may have been viewed by some
as impractical, English majors being a dime a dozen (and other cliches), it
comes in handy later when narrowly-focused and narrow-minded individuals start
spouting things in a context that does not even recognize the pluralistic
nature of the current US of A.
But then, you knew that, Ron, and just thought you'd borrow some of pb's
adolescent semantics to see if you could punch my button.
Truth to tell, Ron, I don't think there are any reliable data yet on the
reasons why women are choosing to use Safe Haven laws.
And my guess is that I have as good or better sources that Marley, whose secret
research findings supposedly proving how flawed the Safe Haven laws are we all
await with keen anticipation.
As for your cutting remark about my "championing female circumcision," you know
better.
Relativism isn't my cup of chai, Ron. A desire to respectfully learn more
about others, on the other hand, has long been part of my personality. It led
me far astray in the stacks when I should have been focused more narrowly on
reading for classes, thesis, etc. That's why I enjoy surfing the "stacks" of
the internet today: so much to learn and so little time!
Best personal regards as always, despite our differences.
Bill Pierce
piercefo...@AOL.com
rkbose
> A child surrendered anonymously is essentially a "non-person",
> without identity or entitlement to legal rights until such a time as
> he/she becomes "legitimized" by adoption. Until that time, the child
> has claim on no one, nor vice versa. Effectively, the child can be
> considered as a "product".
You know, I can't think you're right.
A child surrendered anonymously is still a human person under the law.
Let us assume that he/she is not adopted (quite a common outcome in
India, BTW). He immediately becomes a ward of the State. He would go
into foster care. Certainly the child would get a name. He would go to
school. If you murdered him, you would be in violation of the law. If he
wished, on reaching adulthood, to make a contract, he would have the
right to do so.
I believe he would be assumed to be a US citizen, as are all babies born
in the US. He would have the right to vote.
Why do you think he'd be a non-person?
Can someone help on the US law in this discussion?
Rupa
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668)
>Message-id: <20020421223228...@mb-fp.aol.com>
>
><< ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One)
>Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 7:25 PM
>Message-id: <20020421192501...@mb-dh.aol.com>
snip
>Do you really think that lack of access to medical care is what's
>making girls/women toss their babies into dumpsters like garbage? Or do
>you
>think perhaps it's possible that they see the dumpsters as a means of getting
>rid of something they don't want, i.e. their babies? After all, what is
>the
>purpose of a dumpster? Isn't it where you dump your trash?
kj replied:
>If a woman will drop her kid off in a dumpster in the first place, what
>makes
>any of us think that she's going to bother heading to the hospital.
Ed Zachary!
what
>if
>somebody sees her and tells her mother?? (hey, if you're hormonal and
paranoid)
>
>IMO (which is probably wrong...) these women are so fucked up about being
>pregnant that I doubt they would have the wherewithal to go to the hospital
>rather than a dorm bathroom--or if she's all fucked up on crack--a nearby
>garbage can.
Yep.
>As an adoptee, I feel I should have the right to know my genes--even if
>they do
>suck!
I agree.
>As a woman--I think no woman should be ashamed to have an unplanned pregnancy,
>no matter how they choose to deal with it--ie: through abortion,
relinquishment
>or the other.
Yikes.
>To answer your question--I don't think that lack of access to medical care
>is
>what makes girls dump their babies. I think you're probably right in that
>it's just a way for them to get rid of something they don't want.
I'm glad we agree!
Ronald Morgan
piercefo...@aol.com wrote on 4/21/02 7:32 PM:
> But then, you knew that, Ron, and just thought you'd borrow some of pb's
> adolescent semantics to see if you could punch my button.
Not at all, Bill, it just seems that when you're replying to Rupa you get
uncharacteristically multi-cultural. When you have a different audience, for
instance talking on Canadian TV, or to congressional supporters of ICWA,
your tolerance for other cultures evaporates like a mist on a summer
morning.
>
> Truth to tell, Ron, I don't think there are any reliable data yet on the
> reasons why women are choosing to use Safe Haven laws.
The time for data gathering is before you change the public policy. There
was little reliable data before the Baby Dumps, and precious little to be
learned from them, since they short circuit any attempts to gather data.
> Relativism isn't my cup of chai, Ron. A desire to respectfully learn more
> about others, on the other hand, has long been part of my personality. It led
> me far astray in the stacks when I should have been focused more narrowly on
> reading for classes, thesis, etc. That's why I enjoy surfing the "stacks" of
> the internet today: so much to learn and so little time!
I'm an old autodidact myself. My idea of heaven on earth is Powells Books in
Portland or City Lights here in town.
Ron
Rhiannon
I know what you mean Rupa. I believe you are right about a child being
a person under the law. But if a child's existence is concealed from
the beginning?
I didn't express myself well.
I'm really struggling with this one (as anyone can see!)
What I meant was not "essentially" but "effectively", I think. That
the condition of anonymity (extended to the mother, but passed in to
the child) eludes the rights to which that child is entitled .
Yes, it would be valuable to get some informed legal input to help
sort this out. I'm ignorant and flummoxed.
This is written in haste, so I'll give it more thought and time.
Rhiannon
SusanDyne
>Date: 4/21/2002 11:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <gimme-FA291F....@corp.supernews.com>
>
>In article <dafc70.02042...@posting.google.com>,
> sarall...@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:
>
>> It's not the miniscule number of anonymous infants that disturbs me,
>> so much as the legal precedent that these laws create.
>> without identity or entitlement to legal rights until such a time as
>> he/she becomes "legitimized" by adoption. Until that time, the child
>> has claim on no one, nor vice versa. Effectively, the child can be
>> considered as a "product".
>
>
>- Don
>
Hooking on:
Rhiannon, a piece of paper doesn't make a child 'real' of legitimize it's
existence. The fact that the child is alive, safe and receiving care is what's
important. I'd rather have an abandoned live baby than a death certificate.
Marley Greiner
> >Subject: Re: Attn. Marley: baby dumped in Brooklyn, NY, from NY Times
> >From: Ronald Morgan rhyz...@earthlink.net
> >Date: 04/21/2002 9:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> Good ole Ron wrote:
> >
> >Bill, please quit kissing Rupa's---, we all know she's a bright light.
>
> It is possible that some of those on a.a, even those of us who are not
> regulars, had some familiarity with other cultures, ethnic groups,
religions
> and nationalities before the Safe Haven controversy arrived. Some of us,
Ron,
> had the benefit of undergraduate education in the so-called liberal arts
where
> we studied rather broadly. While such meanderings may have been viewed by
some
> as impractical, English majors being a dime a dozen (and other cliches),
it
> comes in handy later when narrowly-focused and narrow-minded individuals
start
> spouting things in a context that does not even recognize the pluralistic
> nature of the current US of A.
>
> But then, you knew that, Ron, and just thought you'd borrow some of pb's
> adolescent semantics to see if you could punch my button.
>
> Truth to tell, Ron, I don't think there are any reliable data yet on the
> reasons why women are choosing to use Safe Haven laws.
And how to you propose to get that data, Bill, since it's all our little
secret? It's a perfect set-up. No documentation, no accountability.
Marley
Kjs668
>Date: 04/22/2002 1:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <gimme-5D6AB3....@corp.supernews.com>
>
>In article <20020422001548...@mb-mq.aol.com>,
> ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One) wrote:
>
>>From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668)
>>Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 10:32 PM
>>Message-id: <20020421223228...@mb-fp.aol.com>
>
>> >medical care is what makes girls dump their babies. I think you're
>> >probably right in that it's just a way for them to get rid of
>> >something they don't want.
>>
>> I'm glad we agree!
>
>
>- Don
>
Hey--wait a second there... I'm a sick person just because I don't believe a
new law is going to affect the people it needs to affect?? I think it's awful
that someone could drop a baby off in a dumpster. I also think it's unlikely
that a law is going to change the people who already do that. If somebody is
that hideous, do you really think the Safe Haven Bill is going to change that??
If I thought it would, I would be all for it too.
By the way, Don, I hope you're doing all right after the loss of your mother.
I know it's a crappy thing to go through.
kj
Kjs668
>Message-id: <20020422001548...@mb-mq.aol.com>
so you don't have to call the threat into the UN.)
kj
Marley Greiner
"Rhiannon" <sarall...@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.02042...@posting.google.com...
> rkbose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:<3CC22940...@pacific.net.sg>...
> > Marley Greiner wrote:
> > >
> > > "Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > > Okay, but make sure you know how many births occured during the same
> > > > period.
> > > >
> > > > - Don
> > >
> > > Don, that's the point. These laws aren't even needed . The number or
> > > abandonments and infanticides is miniscule The ones that do occur are
being
> > > exploited as an "epidemic" by certain parts of the adoption industry
as cog
> > > in their own secret/closed adoption agenda. Undocumented infants put
> > > anonymous relinquishment into the law. Undocumented infants are gold
to the
> > > black market
> > >
> > > Marley
> >
> > Marley, this is going over my head. Can you spell it out? How are a
> > handful of anonymous infants going to be gold to anyone?
> >
> > Rupa
>
> It's not the miniscule number of anonymous infants that disturbs me,
> so much as the legal precedent that these laws create.
A non-adopted friend of mine refers to safe havens as The Stork Preservation
Act. These laws advocate a state of legal limbo--a non-documented young
human--a product of the state--with no biological ties or identity, to be be
distributed, manipulated, and dispersed by these state at it's leisure. In
Maryland (soon) and NY there is absolutely no accountability or liability.
A parent need only turn the newborn over to a "responsible person" who is
turn is expected to take it to a drop-off point. Neither parent nor
designated dumper is liable for legal or physical damage caused the infant.
While nearly ever state's laws contain a clause about abuse, how would abuse
be prosecuted if the transaction is anonymous? (And no, Don, this is a big
issue. This was one of the very first questions asked by the Ohio
Legislature two years ago--this is a real concern--along with a second
concern of "relinquishment of dead babies) Abuse is not always visible. If
an undocumented baby is turned over to a "responsible person" and is
abused-- who's to prove who did what? Whenever this question was brought
up--usually by supporters--the answer was, "Don't worry about it. We'll
come up with something later."
> A child surrendered anonymously is essentially a "non-person",
> without identity or entitlement to legal rights until such a time as
> he/she becomes "legitimized" by adoption. Until that time, the child
> has claim on no one, nor vice versa.
The baby has as much "rigihts" as anybody else--as far as a "right" exists,
which it does only in theory.
Effectively, the child can be
> considered as a "product".
> It seems to me that once the precedent for anonymous relinquishment
> has been established, it opens up loopholes for all kinds of nefarious
> dealings, that remain *within* the law, and that can be transacted
> without consequence to the adults involved.
The baby certainly is a product; a short supply product with a huge consumer
market out there ready to grab it up. Kind of like the Roller Ball lottery.
With every baby that is abandoned illegally or legally though a safe
haven, hospitals complain that the phones ring off the hook with paps
volunteering to take the product off its hands. Hospitals are not amused,
and always issue a statement reminding people that they simply can't drop by
the hospital and pick up a baby.; that there is such a thing as an adoption
system.
Babies are a consumable, like Spam. Any baby will do as long as we get one.
Marley
>
> Rhiannon
Marley Greiner
> In article <20020422001548...@mb-mq.aol.com>,
> ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One) wrote:
>
> >From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668)
> >Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 10:32 PM
> >Message-id: <20020421223228...@mb-fp.aol.com>
>
> > >medical care is what makes girls dump their babies. I think you're
> > >probably right in that it's just a way for them to get rid of
> > >something they don't want.
> >
> > I'm glad we agree!
>
>
> - Don
Gee, Don, that's what all the legal and psychiatric, and medical studies
point to. (speaking of the US).
Marley
Ronald Morgan
gimme@a~break.net wrote on 4/21/02 11:29 PM:
> In article <B8E8ECE0.55E3%rhyz...@earthlink.net>,
> Ronald Morgan <rhyz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> Truth to tell, Ron, I don't think there are any reliable data yet on the
>>> reasons why women are choosing to use Safe Haven laws.
>>
>> The time for data gathering is before you change the public policy. There
>> was little reliable data before the Baby Dumps, and precious little to be
>> learned from them, since they short circuit any attempts to gather data.
>
> Get real, and use some common sense, Ron.
You get real Don.
>
> First of all, you can't do a double blind study on this, so you're never
> going to get truly scientific data.
Well, lets just throw all the social sciences out the window, since we can't
get truly scientific data on human behaviors.
Second, it just makes sense to give
> women additional options to safely surrender a child...only a person
> with a wacky agenda would argue otherwise, when the alternative for the
> child is a dumpster.
Only someone with their own wacky agenda would limit the options to
anonymous baby dumps or dumpsters, based only on their unresearched opinion.
> - Don
Ronald Morgan
Marley Greiner at maddog...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 4/22/02 7:39 AM:
Don doesn't give a fuck about studies. He gets his data from TV websites.
Ron
>
> Marley
>
>
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668)
>Message-id: <20020422101606...@mb-fi.aol.com>
>>ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One)
>>Date: 04/22/2002 12:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20020422001548...@mb-mq.aol.com>
snip
>> I'm glad we agree!
>Me too! I'd hate to have to come over there and get you. (I wouldn't
>really,
>so you don't have to call the threat into the UN.)
Phew, THAT'S a relief - I know they already have a lot to do what with their
investigation into Kansas adoption laws. I understand it's a top priority for
them, and I wouldn't want to take valuable resources away from it.
Kjs668
>Message-id: <20020422114422...@mb-ch.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: Attn. Marley: baby dumped in Brooklyn, NY, from NY Times
>>From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668)
>>Date: 4/22/02 10:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20020422101606...@mb-fi.aol.com>
>
>>>ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One)
>>>Date: 04/22/2002 12:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <20020422001548...@mb-mq.aol.com>
>
>snip
>
>>> I'm glad we agree!
>
>>Me too! I'd hate to have to come over there and get you. (I wouldn't
>>really,
>>so you don't have to call the threat into the UN.)
>
> Phew, THAT'S a relief - I know they already have a lot to do what with
>their
>investigation into Kansas adoption laws. I understand it's a top priority
>for
>them, and I wouldn't want to take valuable resources away from it.
>
>
kj
Kjs668
>Date: 04/22/2002 12:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <gimme-DEC7E8....@corp.supernews.com>
>
>In article <20020422101341...@mb-fi.aol.com>,>> >Date: 04/22/2002 1:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id:
>> >
>> >>From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668) Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 10:32 PM
>> >>Message-id: <20020421223228...@mb-fp.aol.com>
>> >
>> >> >To answer your question--I don't think that lack of access to
>> >> >medical care is what makes girls dump their babies. I think
>> >> >you're probably right in that it's just a way for them to get rid
>> >> >of something they don't want.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >- Don
>> >
>> believe a new law is going to affect the people it needs to affect??
>> I think it's awful that someone could drop a baby off in a dumpster.
>> I also think it's unlikely that a law is going to change the people
>> who already do that. If somebody is that hideous, do you really
>> think the Safe Haven Bill is going to change that??
>
>of panic, in most situations. If there was a better choice, I think that
>some women would take it.
>
You're may be right--in fact, I hope you are. I still think that most women who
toss babies in a dumpster or give birth in a dorm bathroom will do just that no
matter what laws are passed. I don't think it's right, but I think that is
what our society has turned into.
>> If I thought it would, I would be all for it too.
>
>It won't save EVERY baby, everyone acknowedges that. But what's wrong
>with saving the ones that can be saved with a system like this in place?
>
If it does work the way it is supposed to work, then that would be wonderful.
If a baby who would have ended up in a dumpster goes to a loving home... that
would be great. I still think this bill won't affect most of the people it
should. I hope it does, though. I sincerely do.
kj
Johnny
dump(ster) law is not something most would use if they were rational to
begin with. Accountability for ones actions is more important, than
teaching people they can hide their mistakes.
--
Johnny
"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
news:gimme-DEC7E8....@corp.supernews.com...
Usually, I don't think it's done to be "hideous." I think it's done out
of panic, in most situations. If there was a better choice, I think that
some women would take it.
- Don
Marley Greiner
> In article
> <5aVw8.44316$QC1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> keep it and continue to abuse it, even if that means the abusive parent
> gets away with it.
And possibly continues to abuse other children, a spouse, or any number of
others.
>
> It comes down to the greater good--a concept you have problems with.
>
> A live child with no birth certificate is a greater good than a dead
> child in a dumpster (still with no birth certificate).
>
> A live child that has been abused, but is now in safe hands is better
> than a child continuing to be abused.
>
> - Don
There are other numerous interventions in these situations. It is not
either/or.
Marley
Marley Greiner
> In article <B8E978BB.5601%rhyz...@earthlink.net>,
> Ronald Morgan <rhyz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > in article rgVw8.44324$QC1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
> > Marley Greiner at maddog...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 4/22/02 7:39
AM:
> >
> > >
> > > "Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
> > > news:gimme-5D6AB3....@corp.supernews.com...
> > >> In article <20020422001548...@mb-mq.aol.com>,
> > >> ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668)
> > >>> Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 10:32 PM
> > >>> Message-id: <20020421223228...@mb-fp.aol.com>
> > >>
> > >>>> To answer your question--I don't think that lack of access to
> > >>>> medical care is what makes girls dump their babies. I think
you're
> > >>>> probably right in that it's just a way for them to get rid of
> > >>>> something they don't want.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm glad we agree!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> - Don
> > >
> > > Gee, Don, that's what all the legal and psychiatric, and medical
studies
> > > point to. (speaking of the US).
> >
> > Don doesn't give a fuck about studies.
>
What are you talking about? I'm talking about studies in law, medicine,
psychiatry. The accepted literature of the field.
Marley
>
> > He gets his data from TV websites.
>
> What in the world does this mean?
>
> - Don
Porco Tagliato
wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:12:16 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
><maddog...@worldnet.att.net> calmly exclaimed:
>
>The Eminent Dr. William Pierce writes:
>>> Truth to tell, Ron, I don't think there are any reliable data yet on
>>> the reasons why women are choosing to use Safe Haven laws.
>>
>>And how to you propose to get that data, Bill, since it's all our little
>>secret? It's a perfect set-up. No documentation, no accountability.
>>
>>Marley
>
>Hum a few bars, Mar...I think I've heard that song before.
>
>pb...
>
>
>
> "...yet in thy dark streets shineth the everlasting Light..."
>
>http://www.ourfm-cfidsworld.org/
>http://www.ibar.com/unlocking/contribute.htm
>http://helpafghanwomen.com/
Edward Eade II ren...@pyrates.com aka Eric MacDobhran
http://www.pyrates.com/fanclub/
Member of The Brazen Arms
The Unknown RenMerc
Traviticus insanicus
Plot Plot Plot
The Wheels of the Temple, Carrier of the Heavenly Brew
Acolyte to the Goddess of Love, Gracious Pragmatist to Bared Minds and
Sensitive Sipper of Life's Offerings
Nobility is not a birthright, it is defined by ones actions.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/IT/O d-(+) s+:+ a- C++$ U- P+ L E? W++ N++ o K- w+$
O--- M V? PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP- t*+ 5++ X R+ tv+ b++ DI++ D-
G e*+ h- r-- y-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
rkbose
>
Rupa:
> > > Marley, this is going over my head. Can you spell it out? How are a
> > > handful of anonymous infants going to be gold to anyone?
> >
> human--a product of the state--with no biological ties or identity, to be be
> distributed, manipulated, and dispersed by these state at it's leisure.
I understand that in the US everyone needs to be documented (not that
I'd have expected you to support that concept, Marley...). The kid is
undocumented initially, but then is provided with documentation, just
like every baby that arrives. The documentation does not list its mother
or birthdate or birthplace, but it can be given a presumed beginning
right where it is. How important is the exact place and time of birth,
unless, like in India, someone wants to cast your horoscope?
And presumably the infant will be moved into a family at some point. It
is no more a product of the state than any other baby, though it may
well be a ward of the state. Like many other infants and children, for
various reasons.
> Neither parent nor
> designated dumper is liable for legal or physical damage caused the infant.
> While nearly ever state's laws contain a clause about abuse, how would abuse
> be prosecuted if the transaction is anonymous?
I think Don's point here is critical: At least the baby is being removed
from the abusive situation.
> issue. This was one of the very first questions asked by the Ohio
> Legislature two years ago--this is a real concern--along with a second
> concern of "relinquishment of dead babies)
I think this is a valid point: It provides an easy way to dispose of the
bodies of infants. However, I would imagine that that's not actually
very difficult to do. I doubt very much if the parents of dead and
dumped infants are ever found. Also, I doubt the havens would accept
little corpses, though they may get premature infants on the point of
death.
Abuse is not always visible. If
> an undocumented baby is turned over to a "responsible person" and is
> abused-- who's to prove who did what?
That could happen in any case if a baby is away from its mother at all
-- normal for most babies. If it's been abused, it's difficult to find
out if it was the carer or the boyfriend or the mom.
Rupa
Marley Greiner
> >Subject: Re: Attn. Marley: baby dumped in Brooklyn, NY, from NY Times
> >Date: 04/20/2002 7:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >
> >Marley, this is going over my head. Can you spell it out? How are a
> >handful of anonymous infants going to be gold to anyone?
> >
> >
> Rupa, what Marley is saying is simply a more lucid and grown-up version of
poor
> Patty's posts. There are those, on a.a and elsewhere, that see the Safe
Haven
> laws as either something dreamed up by a vast Right-Center-Left Wing
> Conspiracty or a plot by Black Market Baby Sellers who will sneak into
> hospitals or barge into public social service agencies, sweep away all
those
> dozens of babies, and auction them off to the higher bidder.
They are no brainer laws for politicians who want to look good, even if
they know the laws are bad social policy.
It's interesting though, that the Baby Moses Project faq,
(www.babymosees.org then click on faq) actually addresses two issues which
we are currently debating with Dr. Pierce: the channeling of women into
baby dump programs *and* Rupa's question extended into the danger of
unregulated and unaccountable baby collection, albeit with a most positive
and Piercian spin on both.
Under the question of:
>Why does a public department have to be involved, >since there are many
private groups who are working >in this area?
We get this answer:
>Arranging foster care and adoptions is something >that, in the laws of most
states, requires the >involvement of a licensed child-placing or adoption
>agency. There are literally thousands of crisis >pregnancy centers,
faith-based organizations and >other voluntary groups, which can provide
information, >referrals and help to women in crisis. But most of >these are
not licensed to do adoption placements or >provide the information to be
given out to callers. In >addition, the information on these web sites can
be >misleading or inaccurate.
So Baby Moses Project not only admits but advocates, that crisis pregnancy
counselors and faith based organizations channel women into baby dumps
instead of counseling them in legitimate relinquishment procedures, pre-and
post-natal medical and psychological counseling, and informed relinquishment
and adoption options--practices that any legitimate organization performs
without question. That's a pretty big order for organizations that Curtis
Young complains are "anti-adoption." I know it will probably come as a
shock, but confidential adoptions are still practiced in the US, and if a
woman wants one, she should have it. But "confidential" doesn't equal
anonymous. Do Baby Moses advocates support informed consent and closed
adoptions or do they just propagandize with open adoption scare tactics in
order to snag one for the Gipper? While informed consent and parental
consent aqare two keystones of the anti-abortion movement, are these
principles left by the wayside when it comes to baby dumps? Do Baby Moses
ideqlogues tell women of the consequences of legal abandonment or are the
babies just whisked away by the stork? Gee, maybe we who are opposed to
baby dumps should just do some sidewalk counseling of our own and picket ERs
and fire stations , shouting through bullhorns "Don't dump your baby."
Here's more from the baby Moses faq regarding "unscrupulous" people--in
this case, organizations who actually work with women on street. One of
these organizations, which I am positive is being referenced here, has a
very good track record in saving babies and keeping mothers and their babies
together. Unfortunately, for it, they refuse to give in to the Baby Moses
juggernaut and stand on their principles that anonymous abandonment is bad
for everybody concerned.
From the faq:
>For instance, two of the high-profile groups in >California known for their
interest in abandoned >children are not licensed to do placements, yet they
>give out information and act in ways similar to >agencies. The difference
is that if someone were to >innocently follow their advice they could end up
>violating the law. In one instance, a California group >says on its web
site to women contemplating >abandonment: "We can arrange a confidential
>adoption for you without your parents finding out, if you >want to give up
the baby. You don't need approval >from your parents or the baby's father;
we'll take care >of the paperwork." This information is only partially
>accurate: the baby's father has very distinct legal >rights in many
instances. Other groups, including at >least one in California, tells
callers that one of their >couples will fly in, pick up a baby, fly to
California, and >an adoption can be arranged without the father >knowing
anything. Among other considerations, such >advice is contrary to the
Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, which has been agreed to
and >is part of the law of each of the states.
NOTE from me: is David Keene Leavitt running this operation? Cheesh?
While the Baby Moses Project seems to oppose go-betweens in organizations
which it doesn't like; it supports them with laws such as NY and Maryland
which permit a designated baby dumper. Then there's Allegheny County's
Babies for Baskets program in which over 500 households maintain baby
baskets on their porches for "desperate mothers" to drop off their "unwanted
infants" in. The prosecutor loves this idea. Is this responsible behavior
on anybody's part? Fortunately, no Little Wanderer has utilized this
program--yet!
So it's all relative to who's acting as the dumper and the collector.
More from the faq:
>Clearly, there is a role for groups such as these crisis >pregnancy
centers, as well as licensed private >adoption agencies, and attorneys
experienced in >family and adoption law. But the ultimate responsibility >is
given, by statute, to the state agency in charge of >social services, child
protection services and >adoption. The state agency may decide to contract
>out some of its responsibilities to others, but until the >state agency has
done this, other groups are at >substantial legal peril if they act
independently of >pertinent regulations and statutes. We support all
>efforts to put an end to this tragic problem, but request >a strict
adherence to the law by which each state is >governed.
Which for some reason can include turning a baby over to a total stranger
who is expected to take care of it legally via a safe haven drop.
Clearly anybody could hang out a shingle as act as a go-between Doctors,
ministers, do-gooders, the unregistered church movement, financial
scalawags. Who's to know the difference? The nmother? The aparents? The
kid? It's over with. It's done. It's secret. This is the same procedure
that classic baby brokers, like Dr. Hicks, have used. It's insidious and
immoral., only now the state facilitates it.
>
> The laws have already saved some babies' lives. The laws have already
kept
> some women from committing crimes that they would otherwise do prison time
for.
> These realities really anger those, whether Marley or Ron or their
disciples,
> or the heads-in-the-sand social work sorority, who want no changes in
practices
> that have failed babies and women for several decades.
The same people who fight for openess in adoption.
>
> Many of those who oppose these laws have other agendas. And some have no
idea
> of the many challenges faced by women in the USA, including those of
minority
> ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds, who have reasons for needing an
> anonymous, legal way to turn their babies over safely to others.
>
Why do they even have them then?
> Or, in other words, the opposition to Safe Haven laws is not logical. And
no
> amount of reasoned discussion on a.a or elsewhere is apt to bring them
around.
The ideological purveyors of baby dumps are illogical. They think sweeping
the dirt under there rug makes it all go away. Well dirt rises eventually.
Marley
>
> Bill Pierce
> piercefo...@AOL.com
Marley Greiner
> Marley Greiner wrote:
> >
> Rupa:
> > > > Marley, this is going over my head. Can you spell it out? How are a
> > > > handful of anonymous infants going to be gold to anyone?
> > >
> > These laws advocate a state of legal limbo--a non-documented young
> > human--a product of the state--with no biological ties or identity, to
be be
> > distributed, manipulated, and dispersed by these state at it's leisure.
>
> I understand that in the US everyone needs to be documented (not that
> I'd have expected you to support that concept, Marley...). The kid is
> undocumented initially, but then is provided with documentation, just
> like every baby that arrives. The documentation does not list its mother
> or birthdate or birthplace, but it can be given a presumed beginning
> right where it is. How important is the exact place and time of birth,
> unless, like in India, someone wants to cast your horoscope?
But it is legally cut off by state sanction; not by accident or individual
responsibility, and bad behavior and judgment.
>
> And presumably the infant will be moved into a family at some point. It
> is no more a product of the state than any other baby, though it may
> well be a ward of the state. Like many other infants and children, for
> various reasons.
The state is in loco parentis (I think that's the term I want_ because it
has nullified through anon. dumps, identification.
>
> > Neither parent nor
> > designated dumper is liable for legal or physical damage caused the
infant.
> > While nearly ever state's laws contain a clause about abuse, how would
abuse
> > be prosecuted if the transaction is anonymous?
>
> I think Don's point here is critical: At least the baby is being removed
> from the abusive situation.
And others may stand in abuse.
>
> > issue. This was one of the very first questions asked by the Ohio
> > Legislature two years ago--this is a real concern--along with a second
> > concern of "relinquishment of dead babies)
>
> I think this is a valid point: It provides an easy way to dispose of the
> bodies of infants. However, I would imagine that that's not actually
> very difficult to do. I doubt very much if the parents of dead and
> dumped infants are ever found. Also, I doubt the havens would accept
> little corpses, though they may get premature infants on the point of
> death.
The question on this was about prosecution. If someone showed up with a
dead baby, it would have to be determined how it died, and if someone had a
role in its death. I don't see that as a big issue itself and would be very
rare.. But the other part--disposing of a corpuses is. Corpuses, by law,
can only be disposed of certain ways, and throwing one in the garbage is not
government approved and will be prosecuted..
There are cases when women are prosecuted on various charges: negligent
homicide, neglect, murder, when the cause of death cannot be determined. We
have a case right now in Alabama where the prosecution can't prove that a
baby even existed (the mother was had been medically sterilized several
years earlier), yet she, her sister, the alledged father were prosecuted
anyway and she's sitting in jail, despite the fact that doctors have said
there is no way she ever gave birth. These are poor, mentally deficient
African American folk, which brings up a whole other issue. There is a
high profile case here in Ohio where the coroner ruled that the baby died at
birth, yet the mother is sitting in the Mansfield Reformatory anyway for
killing it.
>
> Abuse is not always visible. If
> > an undocumented baby is turned over to a "responsible person" and is
> > abused-- who's to prove who did what?
>
> That could happen in any case if a baby is away from its mother at all
> -- normal for most babies. If it's been abused, it's difficult to find
> out if it was the carer or the boyfriend or the mom.
True, but the state is complicit in this.
Marley
>
> Rupa
Rhiannon
> >Subject: Re: Attn. Marley: baby dumped in Brooklyn, NY, from NY Times
> >From: Don gimme@a~break.net
> >Date: 4/21/2002 11:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <gimme-FA291F....@corp.supernews.com>
> >
> >In article <dafc70.02042...@posting.google.com>,
> > sarall...@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:
> >
> >> It's not the miniscule number of anonymous infants that disturbs me,
> >> so much as the legal precedent that these laws create.
> >> A child surrendered anonymously is essentially a "non-person",
> >> without identity or entitlement to legal rights until such a time as
> >> he/she becomes "legitimized" by adoption. Until that time, the child
> >> has claim on no one, nor vice versa. Effectively, the child can be
> >> considered as a "product".
> >
> >Whoa! There's quite a leap of illogic.
Rh.
Yeah, you're right. I'm agile that way.
> >
> >- Don
> >
> Hooking on:
> Rhiannon, a piece of paper doesn't make a child 'real' of legitimize it's
> existence. The fact that the child is alive, safe and receiving care is what's
> important. I'd rather have an abandoned live baby than a death certificate.
Rh.
Understood. Life. There's nothing quite like it.
Susan, can you tell me how these children are "processed", re. the
adoption system, after the surrender?
Rhiannon.
"Canada? I don't know what street it's on."
Al Capone.
Marley Greiner
> In article
> <gYYw8.44587$QC1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > The ideological purveyors of baby dumps are illogical.
>
> Movement!
What is illogical about truth in adoption? What is illogical about equal
treatment under law?
>
> > They think sweeping
> > the dirt under there rug makes it all go away. Well dirt rises
eventually.
>
> And some of the dirt is used to bury dead babies who could have been
> saved by a Baby Drop.
How many real live baby dumpers do you know? How many have you spoken to?
How many interviews have you read with them. How many books and scholarly
articles on baby abandonment and infanticide have you read? THis is not a
black and white issue, and you're too smart to claim otherwise.
>
> Marley, when you make these "all go away" claims, you make yourelf look
> like you have not a single clue as to what your opposition's position
> is.
I certainly know, Don. I've been living with it every day for over 2 years.
No one is claiming Baby Drops will "makes it all go away." The best
> one can hope for is that it is occassionally an option that saves a
> baby's life.
And if they don't? And what about the life of women who think they can keep
it a secret and make it all go away. Do you know what happened in Eau
Claire?
Marley
>
> - Don
SusanDyne
>Date: 4/22/2002 3:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <dafc70.020422...@posting.google.com>
It would depend on the jurisdiction, since each state has different laws
regarding child safety and each family court judge has different ways of
interpreting these laws. I'd imagine that after the child is medically sound,
he/she would become a ward of that state and go into a foster care setting. The
ending would depend on whether the mother returned or if the child was claimed
by a relative. If not, onward to TRP due to abandonment...then an adoptive
home. Again, time frames depend on state law.
Ronald Morgan
gimme@a~break.net wrote on 4/22/02 8:55 AM:
> In article <B8E96FB0.55F8%rhyz...@earthlink.net>,
> Ronald Morgan <rhyz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, lets just throw all the social sciences out the window, since we can't
>> get truly scientific data on human behaviors.
>
> Finally, you're starting to make sense.
I suppose you don't use marketing analysis in your business. You just
publish whatever and cross your fingers that you reach your target audience.
Sure.
Ron
>
> - Don
Ronald Morgan
Marley Greiner at maddog...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 4/22/02 9:40 AM:
>>>
>>> Don doesn't give a fuck about studies.
>>
>> Studies that you admit aren't scientific.
>
> What are you talking about? I'm talking about studies in law, medicine,
> psychiatry. The accepted literature of the field.
>>
>>> He gets his data from TV websites.
>>
>> What in the world does this mean?
Don, this thread started with you posting an URL to a Wisconsin TV station's
website with a transcription of one of their puff pieces as "proof" that
baby dumps work.
Ron
>>
>> - Don
>
>
rkbose
>
> "rkbose" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
> news:3CC4519A...@pacific.net.sg...
> > Marley Greiner wrote:
> > >
> > Rupa:
> > The kid is
> > undocumented initially, but then is provided with documentation, just
> > like every baby that arrives. The documentation does not list its mother
> > or birthdate or birthplace, but it can be given a presumed beginning
> > right where it is. How important is the exact place and time of birth,
> > unless, like in India, someone wants to cast your horoscope?
>
> But it is legally cut off by state sanction; not by accident or individual
> responsibility, and bad behavior and judgment.
Well, by "bad behaviour" in the sense that its mother has anonymously
relinquished it, not bad behaviour in the sense that its mother tried to
kill it.
> > And presumably the infant will be moved into a family at some point. It
> > is no more a product of the state than any other baby, though it may
> > well be a ward of the state. Like many other infants and children, for
> > various reasons.
>
> The state is in loco parentis (I think that's the term I want) because it
> has nullified through anon. dumps, identification.
The state becomes in loco parentis to any child whose bio-parents are
TPRed. Why is this more of a problem?
> And others may stand in abuse.
So what, though? They would have, anyway. It's not as though the newborn
has a radio-tracking device that allows you to zero in on it and thus
find an abusives household.
> The question on this was about prosecution. If someone showed up with a
> dead baby, it would have to be determined how it died, and if someone had a
> role in its death. I don't see that as a big issue itself and would be very
> rare.. But the other part--disposing of a corpuses is. Corpuses, by law,
> can only be disposed of certain ways, and throwing one in the garbage is not
> government approved and will be prosecuted..
If it can be tracked down, of course, which is not always the case. If
someone did show up with a dead baby, presumably they would be excluded
from the baby drop laws. I don't know how they're written, but
presumably they cover live babies only.
> There are cases when women are prosecuted on various charges: negligent
> homicide, neglect, murder, when the cause of death cannot be determined.
This sounds like implementation issues to me. Malafide implementation is
something you can't solve.
> > That could happen in any case if a baby is away from its mother at all
> > -- normal for most babies. If it's been abused, it's difficult to find
> > out if it was the carer or the boyfriend or the mom.
>
> True, but the state is complicit in this.
That's a bit of a stretch, unless the people at the drop abuse the
child. Otherwise, why does this matter?
Rupa
Johnny
tell you anyway... because I mostly write e-mail, and that is the way I have
it set up. Why do you care where I choose to post in a message anyway? Why
are you being such a "dick"?
--
Johnny
"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
news:gimme-82FD5B....@corp.supernews.com...
And, BTW, quit that fucking top posting. Why are you being such as dick?
- Don
Marley Greiner
> Marley Greiner wrote:
> >
> > "rkbose" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
> > news:3CC4519A...@pacific.net.sg...
> > > Marley Greiner wrote:
> > > >
> > > Rupa:
>
> > > The kid is
> > > undocumented initially, but then is provided with documentation, just
> > > like every baby that arrives. The documentation does not list its
mother
> > > or birthdate or birthplace, but it can be given a presumed beginning
> > > right where it is. How important is the exact place and time of birth,
> > > unless, like in India, someone wants to cast your horoscope?
> >
> > But it is legally cut off by state sanction; not by accident or
individual
> > responsibility, and bad behavior and judgment.
>
> Well, by "bad behaviour" in the sense that its mother has anonymously
> relinquished it, not bad behaviour in the sense that its mother tried to
> kill it.
By her irresponsibility.
>
> > > And presumably the infant will be moved into a family at some point.
It
> > > is no more a product of the state than any other baby, though it may
> > > well be a ward of the state. Like many other infants and children, for
> > > various reasons.
> >
> > The state is in loco parentis (I think that's the term I want) because
it
> > has nullified through anon. dumps, identification.
>
> The state becomes in loco parentis to any child whose bio-parents are
> TPRed. Why is this more of a problem?
There is no identity by state sanction. There is no chain of evidence.
Nothing to connect the baby to anybody or anything. Two hospitals that I
know of in the US have actual baby slots in an out-of-the-way area of a
hospital complex so they don't even have to bother with bringing the baby
in and seeing someone face-to-face. They can just make a little anonymous
deposit. While this can be totally acceptable in China (and India) it is
not acceptable in the US and goes against all child welfare policy.
>
> > And others may stand in abuse.
>
> So what, though? They would have, anyway. It's not as though the newborn
> has a radio-tracking device that allows you to zero in on it and thus
> find an abusives household.
Child abuse is investigated. If one child is abused, the family in
inivestigated. If the family is anonymous, then the abuse can continue
without investigation or intervention.
>
>
>
> > The question on this was about prosecution. If someone showed up with a
> > dead baby, it would have to be determined how it died, and if someone
had a
> > role in its death. I don't see that as a big issue itself and would be
very
> > rare.. But the other part--disposing of a corpuses is. Corpuses, by
law,
> > can only be disposed of certain ways, and throwing one in the garbage is
not
> > government approved and will be prosecuted..
>
> If it can be tracked down, of course, which is not always the case. If
> someone did show up with a dead baby, presumably they would be excluded
> from the baby drop laws.
That was the question in the Ohio legislature that was never answered
Nobody knew They just shrugged their shoulders and admitted such in the
committe hearings.
I don't know how they're written, but
> presumably they cover live babies only.
They really don't seem to say, but it's assumed.
>
>
> > There are cases when women are prosecuted on various charges:
negligent
> > homicide, neglect, murder, when the cause of death cannot be determined.
>
> This sounds like implementation issues to me. Malafide implementation is
> something you can't solve.
And "killer moms" are women that prosecutors seem to love to prosecute, even
if they haven't killed anybody. The evidence down in Dayton was clear
that the baby died at birth, yet that didn't stop the prosecutor from
ramming through a conviction. Her appeal was turned down by the Ohio
Supreme Court. Every state, every county even is different in the treatment
of the cases. Thre is no standard of prosecution or sentencing.
>
> > > That could happen in any case if a baby is away from its mother at all
> > > -- normal for most babies. If it's been abused, it's difficult to find
> > > out if it was the carer or the boyfriend or the mom.
OH, the cops and social workers do a good job of figuring it out.
> >
> > True, but the state is complicit in this.
>
> That's a bit of a stretch, unless the people at the drop abuse the
> child. Otherwise, why does this matter?
It matters because abuse is going unpunished. The revocation of identity
rights goes unpunished. They're just another product courtesy of the
Adoption Industry.
Marley
>
> Rupa
Johnny
--
Johnny
"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
news:gimme-77AE20....@corp.supernews.com...
In article <sA4x8.98539$G72.70883@sccrnsc01>,
"Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
> I would tell you why I top post, but it wouldn't matter to you. But I'll
> tell you anyway... because I mostly write e-mail, and that is the way I
have
> it set up. Why do you care where I choose to post in a message anyway?
Why
> are you being such a "dick"?
Do you fuck the way you shit? Do you eat the way you piss?
If not, then why do you post to Usenet the same way you e-mail?
Show some fucking manners and respect for the rest of us. Top posting
makes it difficult to follow threads.
If you continue to do it, all you're doing is showing yourself to be a
self-centered asshole who gives fuck all about the rest of the people on
the group.
Your best bet is to use the right tool for the job and get separate
programs for e-mailing and Usenet posting--they're two totally different
activities and only a moron would use the same program to do both.
I'll bet you use an mp3 player for spreadsheets.
- Don
Marley Greiner
> In article <sA4x8.98539$G72.70883@sccrnsc01>,
> "Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
>
I'll
> > tell you anyway... because I mostly write e-mail, and that is the way I
have
> > it set up. Why do you care where I choose to post in a message anyway?
Why
> > are you being such a "dick"?
>
Cheesh, Don. Why do you care?
>
> If not, then why do you post to Usenet the same way you e-mail?
>
> Show some fucking manners and respect for the rest of us. Top posting
> makes it difficult to follow threads.
Some threads. Others not. Who wants to wade through 3 minutes of dreck to
get to the bottrom for a comment?
Marley
>
Johnny
(dreck) so it's easy to see exactly what I am replying to! Now THAT is
courtesy!
--
Johnny
"Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:g%4x8.41317$Rw2.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Johnny
that respect, yes I am a birth father.
--
Johnny
"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
news:gimme-B60391....@corp.supernews.com...
In article <eb5x8.110357$CH1.98849@sccrnsc02>,
"Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
> Bing-freaking-go Marley! At least I take the time to delete the extra crap
> (dreck) so it's easy to see exactly what I am replying to! Now THAT is
> courtesy!
You're a birthfather, aren't you?
Ever single fucking one of them on a.a has been a moron.
- Don
Marley Greiner
> In article
> <g%4x8.41317$Rw2.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > "Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
> > news:gimme-77AE20....@corp.supernews.com...
> > > In article <sA4x8.98539$G72.70883@sccrnsc01>,
> > > "Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would tell you why I top post, but it wouldn't matter to you.
> > > > But I'll tell you anyway... because I mostly write e-mail, and
> > > > that is the way I have it set up. Why do you care where I choose
> > > > to post in a message anyway? Why are you being such a "dick"?
> > >
> > > Do you fuck the way you shit? Do you eat the way you piss?
> >
> > Cheesh, Don. Why do you care?
>
>
> > > If not, then why do you post to Usenet the same way you e-mail?
> > >
> > > Show some fucking manners and respect for the rest of us. Top
> > > posting makes it difficult to follow threads.
> >
> > Some threads. Others not. Who wants to wade through 3 minutes of
> > dreck to get to the bottrom for a comment?
>
>
> He's a fuckwit...why are you defending this bonehead?
>
> - Don
I'm just asking a question. I've never understood why people get so upset
about top posting. Believe me, I've got better things to do than get
involved in a fight over something so insignificant. I would think you
would, too.
Marley
Johnny
Stones... Donny
--
Johnny
"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
news:gimme-A01627....@corp.supernews.com...
In article
<g%4x8.41317$Rw2.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
> news:gimme-77AE20....@corp.supernews.com...
> > In article <sA4x8.98539$G72.70883@sccrnsc01>,
> > "Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I would tell you why I top post, but it wouldn't matter to you.
> > > But I'll tell you anyway... because I mostly write e-mail, and
> > > that is the way I have it set up. Why do you care where I choose
> > > to post in a message anyway? Why are you being such a "dick"?
> >
> > Do you fuck the way you shit? Do you eat the way you piss?
>
> Cheesh, Don. Why do you care?
Those were rhetorical questions to make a point to the dunderhead.
> > If not, then why do you post to Usenet the same way you e-mail?
> >
> > Show some fucking manners and respect for the rest of us. Top
> > posting makes it difficult to follow threads.
>
> Some threads. Others not. Who wants to wade through 3 minutes of
> dreck to get to the bottrom for a comment?
Obviously, Marley, but he is using top posting in an abusive manner.
Johnny
any more valuable than anybody else's? Maybe there are some of us who don't
want to wade through miles of >> with a comment stuck in here and there just
to find out what they have to say is as useless as your constant bickering
and argumentative natured comments. It is common courtesy and Netiquette of
most mailing lists (and the rest of the internet) to include what you're
replying to at the bottom. I don't have to get another program just to post
to Usenet, because Outlook Express works just fine for what I need it to do.
If you have a problem with that, then it is you with the problem not me.
Being an ass, as you usually are here, should be a Usenet account loosing
offence. I bet your mother would wash your mouth out with soap for talking
like you do here! Now go get your diaper changed because you're full of
it....
--
Johnny
"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
news:gimme-4F4443....@corp.supernews.com...
In article
<il5x8.41343$Rw2.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I care, Marley, because my time *is* valuable. Non-standard posting
makes it more difficult, and therefore more time-consuming, to read
posts. I don't want to have my time wasted by some asshole who can't
post like the rest of us.
And it's not enough to killfile the asshole, because when people respond
to him by correctly bottom posting, it's even MORE difficult to follow
the thread.
Top-posting should be a Usenet account-losing offense.
- Don
Johnny
more difficult to read the posting the way you insist they be done. Just
because that's the way everybody else does it, does not make it right. And
just because it's the way it's always been done, doesn't mean that it
doesn't need to be changed.
I have no more contempt for anyone here than anyone elsewhere in the world.
You assume to much.
--
Johnny
"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
news:gimme-0269EB....@corp.supernews.com...
In article <Lk5x8.98804$G72.71091@sccrnsc01>,
"Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
> I have fathered three children, but none of them have been adopted. So in
> that respect, yes I am a birth father.
Okay, I'm going to try to understand you.
Could you please explain why you willingly fuck up threads and make them
unfollowable simply because you can't be bothered to post like the rest
of us?
Do you have THAT much contempt for the rest of the people on the group?
- Don
Johnny
the first thing you do is start calling them names. Seems to me you're the
self centered sphincter, because you want it your way or else... well
waaaaaa waaaaaa waaaaaaaa Poor poor Donny poo
--
Johnny
"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
news:gimme-4EC5F6....@corp.supernews.com...
You're a self-centered asshole.
Fuck off.
- Don
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 04/22/2002 8:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Ms. Marley, doyenne of the "Stop Safe Haven Laws That Save Babies Movement,"
wrote:
> Two hospitals that I
>know of in the US have actual baby slots in an out-of-the-way area of a
>hospital complex so they don't even have to bother with bringing the baby
>in and seeing someone face-to-face.
At the risk of interjecting some logic and practicality into Marley's fixation
on this topic, consider this. Most hospitals in the US have various forms of
passive security in place, like video cameras. Most ER rooms are bedlam.
People concerned about remaining anonymous are not all illogical twits. They
realize that if they go into an ER room they may either be captured on a camera
or seen by someone who knows them. So some have avoided ER rooms and made
choices that resulted in babies dying. To make it possible for women like
these to safely leave their babies at hospitals, some in the USA and abroad
have installed secure, safe, heated, but quite anonymous places where babies
can be placed. This option bothers people like Marley to no end, but it offers
to some women and babies a choice that guarantees immediate access to pediatric
or neonatal care.
Bill Pierce
pierceforhimself
check out www.iavaan.org
AdoptaDad
>Date: 4/23/02 12:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <gimme-B60391....@corp.supernews.com>
>
>In article <eb5x8.110357$CH1.98849@sccrnsc02>,
> "Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
>
>> Bing-freaking-go Marley! At least I take the time to delete the extra crap
>> (dreck) so it's easy to see exactly what I am replying to! Now THAT is
>> courtesy!
>
>You're a birthfather, aren't you?
>
>Ever single fucking one of them on a.a has been a moron.
>
>- Don
Birthfathers are kinda rare in these parts. I'm aware of only one (Qwasi),
and I kinda like the guy.
Dad
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 04/22/2002 11:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Marley has regaled a.a with quotes from the Baby Moses Project web site.
Although many of the FAQs have not been updated for a couple of years, that
site can be reached by going to www.iavaan.org and going to the Safe Haven
portion of the site. There, folks can find logos for a number of state-based
Safe Haven or Baby Moses organizations.
Every time I read one of these long, parsing posts of Marley's I think that she
would have made a first-rate biblical scholar. Theologians spend incredible
amounts of time debating rather obscure points. Fascinating. Intellectually
stimulating.
But FAQs about Safe Haven laws are not anyone's Sacred Scriptures.
Bill Pierce
piercefo...@AOL.com
check out www.iavaan.org for more on Safe Haven (but not theology or
philosophy)
Pierceforhimself
>From: "Marley Greiner" maddog...@worldnet.att.net
Don and others on a.a who read this from Ms. Marley:
>And what about the life of women who think they can keep
>it a secret and make it all go away. Do you know what happened in Eau
>Claire?
>
>Marley
One of the more troubling aspects of the opposition that Marley and her ilk
have mounted to Safe Haven laws, including those that are very carefully
worded, is that some state legislators, facing a flood of Marley, BN and
a.a-inspired emails, decide to forget nuanced legislation and instead do
something that they think will avoid criticism. The "simple laws" often have
loopholes that judges and some DAs can then use to persecute and prosecute
women who made well-intentioned choices to try and turn their babies over to
proper authorities rather than kill or abandon them unsafely. Then, when the
judges go hunting for missing impregnators or the local media decide to
publicize every bit of information to try and track down the "evil woman," and
the glacial child welfare system enmeshes everyone in its grasp, here comes
Marley and her gang saying "see, we told you these laws wouldn't work and just
look at these poor women who thought they could keep things secret and it would
all go away."
Marley likes to have it both ways. Fight the laws and if as a result something
passes that is flawed, then point out that the flawed law betrays women. Nice
Catch-22, but it is not the first to emanate from the Foundress of BN.
Marley's perfect Safe Haven law, of course, doesn't exist. Her alternative is
the same-old same-old, which means women being in the grasp of those social
workers who are so adept at guilt-tripping, those judges whose hearts bleed at
the thought of hit-and-run lovers being deprived of their paternal rights, and
kids caught for months and years in the dysfunctional child welfare system.
No, Don, it's not that Marley doesn't get it. She gets it very well, but
reality and truth just don't square with her ideological view of adoption as
she thinks it ought to be. So she does her research and she spends her
considerable brain-power to try to kill the laws that prevent killing.
And some day in the future, she'll put out something that will probably be as
pathetic as Adam Pertman's "ADOPTION NATION," perhaps under the title "Baby
Dump Nation," or some such provocative label.
Meanwhile, dozens of babies are alive today and living in adoptive families
because of these laws. And some babies are alive and living with their birth
mothers or extended families because these laws gave women an option that
provided a literal breathing space for a newborn. And many women need not look
over their shoulder for the police, wondering how many years they'll have to do
in prison.
What gripes Marley the most is the anonymous nature of the Safe Haven concept,
the very aspect that gives these women the flexibility they need to choose life
for their newborns.
Happily, for the babies and their mothers, Marley's opposition has not been all
that effective.
But she never gives up, nor does her band of disciples.
One never knows the time or type of attack that will next be launched.
Meanwhile, it is gratifying to an elderly, essentially retired guy like me to
see that the Safe Haven Movement has very strong grassroots support. That's
why I can enjoy my rocking chair and only rarely toddle overe to the keyboard
to see what's the latest on a.a.
Roberta
Date: Tue, Apr 23, 2002 7:23 AM
Message-id: <20020423072317...@mb-cv.aol.com>
And some day in the future, she'll put out something that will probably be as
pathetic as Adam Pertman's "ADOPTION NATION," perhaps under the title "Baby
Dump Nation," or some such provocative label.
>>
I have met Adam Pertman and he, sir, is no Marley Greiner!
Roberta
mom to Juliette, 6, adopted 2/4/98 from China
Marley Greiner
> >Subject: Re: Attn. Marley: baby dumped in Brooklyn, NY, from NY Times
> >From: "Marley Greiner" maddog...@worldnet.att.net
> >Date: 04/22/2002 11:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> Marley has regaled a.a with quotes from the Baby Moses Project web site.
> Although many of the FAQs have not been updated for a couple of years,
that
> site can be reached by going to www.iavaan.org and going to the Safe Haven
> portion of the site. There, folks can find logos for a number of
state-based
> Safe Haven or Baby Moses organizations.
>
> Every time I read one of these long, parsing posts of Marley's I think
that she
> would have made a first-rate biblical scholar.
Thanks you, Bill. My bmom's adaughter is supposedly one of the great
theological minds around, according to one of her best friends who has a DD
and is a former Presbyterian minister turned sociology professor.
Unfortunately, she chooses to spend her time slopping hogs and chasing
chickens around the barnyard.
Theologians spend incredible
> amounts of time debating rather obscure points. Fascinating.
Intellectually
> stimulating.
I don't consider a blatant smear in the Baby Moses faq an obscure point.
The faq clearly accuses baby saving organizations, which are not part of
the Baby Moses/Save Haven juggernaut, of wrong-doing. If they are indeed
engaged in illegal or unethical behavior (I have no idea if they are or not)
, their activities need to be documented and presented to the appropriate
authorities for investigation and possible prosecution. Instead they sit
there McCarthyesque in their anonymous malevolence.
You are correct, though that the faq has not been updated for some time.
The entire page is old. The NCFA page needs to be updated badly, but you're
out of that. I personally find www.iavaan.org the most fascinating
opposition page out there and visit it almost daily.
>
> But FAQs about Safe Haven laws are not anyone's Sacred Scriptures.
If Baby Moses wants to be considered relevant, then it should maintain an
updated page with "correct" information.
Best regards,
Marley
Tm n Kat
to sift through a post that you have just read to find a response...Especially
from systems that don't show the quotes correctly. Geeze, what a petty thing
to criticize. Kathy J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Subject: Re: Attn. Marley: baby dumped in Brooklyn, NY, from NY Times
>Date: 4/22/02
>Show some fucking manners and respect for the rest of us. Top posting
>makes it difficult to follow threads.
>
>If you continue to do it, all you're doing is showing yourself to be a
>self-centered asshole who gives fuck all about the rest of the people on
Marley Greiner
Secrets are good mental health tools? Secrets make it all go away. Secrets
protect dysfunction, abuse, addiction, familial horror stories. Can you
point to a social welfare system outside of child welfare, where personal
secrets are facilitated and protected by the state?
I simply cannot believe how steeped you are in the Culture of Shame, Bill.
It's this kind of institutional secret keeping that permits the current
scandal in the Catholic Church, Enron, LDAs, bogus medical histories, sealed
adoption records.
Adoption is not your fiefdom, Bill. Do you really believe that state should
condone and facilitate dirty-little-secret personal behavior; to maintain
your personal aesthetic of cultural and sexual shame?
You are not adopted; you are not a "foundling," you have no understanding
of the politics of identity, which despite what you may think, is a major
political issue in the rest of the world. Secret adoption and safe havens
in the US are nothing short of domestic colonialism.
Marley
Tm n Kat
correlated and marketed with the idea of saving those babes that would
otherwise be dumped. IMO Kathy J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Subject: Re: Attn. Marley: baby dumped in Brooklyn, NY, from NY Times
>Date: 4/23/02
Ronald Morgan
piercefo...@aol.com wrote on 4/23/02 4:23 AM:
>> Subject: Re: Attn. Marley: baby dumped in Brooklyn, NY, from NY Times
>> From: "Marley Greiner" maddog...@worldnet.att.net
>> Date: 04/22/2002 12:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> Don and others on a.a who read this from Ms. Marley:
>
>> And what about the life of women who think they can keep
>> it a secret and make it all go away. Do you know what happened in Eau
>> Claire?
>>
>> Marley
>
> One of the more troubling aspects of the opposition that Marley and her ilk
> have mounted to Safe Haven laws, including those that are very carefully
> worded, is that some state legislators, facing a flood of Marley, BN and
> a.a-inspired emails, decide to forget nuanced legislation and instead do
> something that they think will avoid criticism.
What a load of crap. BN hasn't bothered with a mass campaign against baby
dumps since 2001 since it became apparent that it was a waste of political
capital, they passed regardless. IF there are "flawed" laws, blame the
legislatures which are in the main ill-equipped to deal with the issue, they
give it a couple of hours of deliberation (to be generous), craft a sound
byte or two, fight over credit, try to insert amendments dealing with
abortion, and once it passes, they walk away, usually without funding it,
which shows where there real loyalties lay...
>
> And some day in the future, she'll put out something that will probably be as
> pathetic as Adam Pertman's "ADOPTION NATION," perhaps under the title "Baby
> Dump Nation," or some such provocative label.
The chances are she won't call it Baby Dumps for Dummies. Maybe she can us
Baby Dump Factbook...
>
> Meanwhile, dozens of babies are alive today and living in adoptive families
> because of these laws. And some babies are alive and living with their birth
> mothers or extended families because these laws gave women an option that
> provided a literal breathing space for a newborn. And many women need not
> look
> over their shoulder for the police, wondering how many years they'll have to
> do
> in prison.
Question, Bill: how many women have been prosecuted and sent to prison for
abandoning in a safe place under pre-existing laws?
> One never knows the time or type of attack that will next be launched.
>
My guess it will be in the same media that heretofore has promoted the baby
dumps. The pendulum will swing the other way, TV and newspapers will
"discover" that the laws don't work, or work to cover rather than deal with
the problem of infant abandonment.
Ron
Qwasimodem
Don gimme@a~break.net wrote:
<snip>
>Are you kidding? That joker was a World Class Asshole. He seemed to
>think that those of us who avoided birthfatherhood did it purely out of
>luck...and, by extension, he just had bad luck.
<snip>
Hiya, Don. I see you've upgraded me to "World Class". Thanks.
Now that I'm "World Class", any chance that you may answer
the questions I asked a while back regarding your bigotry? No?
I thought not.
Gary
P.S. *Good* call on immediately spotting Johnny as a bfather. ;-)
Johnny
unlike most of this countries law makers. And in that lives on old school
shame based thinking..... Toddle on back to your rocking chair Bill, it's
time for some new school thinking....
--
Johnny
"Pierceforhimself" <piercefo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020423072317...@mb-cv.aol.com...
Roberta
From: "Marley Greiner" maddog...@worldnet.att.net
Message-id: <7E4x8.41280$Rw2.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<snip>
There is no identity by state sanction. There is no chain of evidence.
Nothing to connect the baby to anybody or anything. Two hospitals that I
know of in the US have actual baby slots in an out-of-the-way area of a
hospital complex so they don't even have to bother with bringing the baby
in and seeing someone face-to-face. They can just make a little anonymous
deposit. While this can be totally acceptable in China (and India) it is
not acceptable in the US and goes against all child welfare policy.
>>
There is no legal anonymous abandonment of babies in China. And many Chinese (I
can't say most because I don't know) abhor the practice of illegal abandonment.
It is not socially acceptable.
Despite the economic hardship of not having a son to care for them in their old
age, most families keep and raise their girls.
Palms2pines
>> Show some fucking manners and respect for the rest of us. Top posting
>> makes it difficult to follow threads.
>
Marley responds:
>Some threads. Others not. Who wants to wade through 3 minutes of dreck to
>get to the bottrom for a comment?
>
>Marley
>>
>
Exactly, Marley. There are situations in which a top post comment makes much
better sense and much easier reading than a bottom posted comment or comments
interspersed throughout. Top posts are not automatically an indication of bad
cyber manners.
P2P
Palms2pines
>
>Fuck off.
>
>- Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
Is this "our" Don..."the" Don? Or, is this a new Don?
P2P
Marley Greiner
> >From: "Marley Greiner" maddog...@worldnet.att.net
> >Date: 04/22/2002 12:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> Don and others on a.a who read this from Ms. Marley:
>
> >And what about the life of women who think they can keep
> >it a secret and make it all go away. Do you know what happened in Eau
> >Claire?
> >
> >Marley
>
> One of the more troubling aspects of the opposition that Marley and her
ilk
> have mounted to Safe Haven laws, including those that are very carefully
> worded, is that some state legislators, facing a flood of Marley, BN and
> a.a-inspired emails, decide to forget nuanced legislation and instead do
> something that they think will avoid criticism. The "simple laws" often
have
> loopholes that judges and some DAs can then use to persecute and prosecute
> women who made well-intentioned choices to try and turn their babies over
to
> proper authorities rather than kill or abandon them unsafely.
A....Bill. There's no loopholes in these laws--except to the advantage of
the baby dump pushers. Prosecutors always have the option to prosecute a
case--any case. They can choose, if they so feel like it,to decline to
prosecute shoplifters, bankrobbers, car thieves, rapists, murderers....and
baby abandoners. Safe haven laws codify an ages long tradition. As I
mentioned earlier, in Ohio nobody could even remember the last prosecution
of a parent who left a child in a safe place. And in fact, for debate
purposees, safe places were defined as police and fire stations, hospitals,
and welfare offices. There was some actual memory of overwhelmed women
leaving small children with the county welfare department. Nobody was ever
prosecuted. I'd argue that safe havens have made prosecutions more likely
in states where the laws are in force but not in use. Two African Amerian
women in Alabama last year were charged with murder--one with capital
speficications, unheard of prior to safe haven implemenation. Lately the
women have fallen off the map, but when I get on Lexus Nexus I'll be able to
get a better idea of what has happened to them.
The screw-loose laws that you talk about came into effect on your watch:
NY and MD. Any "responsible person." Give me a break. Just who and what
is a responsible person? How does one judge if a person is responsible?
For all any of us know, somebody might give a baby up to some whacked out
Satanic baby burner. Now I doubt that would happen, but where's the
definition here; where's the liability, where's the personal and the state
responsibility?
Then, when the
> judges go hunting for missing impregnators
Now when has *that* ever happened? I'm sure some of our aa regulars can
tell you how efficient courts are in tracking down fathers. Men have always
had a free ride as far as fatherhood is concerned. They can walk out, they
don't even have to know about it. But for women, it's different. Safe
Havens simply even the playing field, give women the option to opt out of
parental responsibly must like men have done since the beginning of history.
or the local media decide to
> publicize every bit of information to try and track down the "evil woman,"
and
> the glacial child welfare system enmeshes everyone in its grasp, here
comes
I've seen very little of that. The Colorado papers got the name of the
Aurora couple from the police report. Consequently the people wanted to
reclaim their baby a couple days later. These people should never have been
counseled into a dump. Hospital social workers knew better--or should
have-- but they did it anyway.. Why? because it's too much damned trouble
to do it the right way?
The Miami Herald the other day editorialized that the age limit needs to be
raised. Why? Because a woman with a 2-month old baby--now dubbed Baby
Sushine-- left it at a fire station. She'd been abandoned by the baby's
father, was poor, and had over-stayed her visa. She was embarrassed about
taking money from friends and had been turned down for public assistance.
According to one of the news stories, welfare gave her a few cans of milk
and sent her on her way. The sight of a child welfare delivery system that
prefers to see women give up their own flesh and blood rather than furnish
them a few dollars for food, housing, and vocational training is an
abomination The message is clear: Poor, hungry, homeless? Then give
your baby to the state and you can walk away free of guilt and maybe have
better chance at a shelder? Wouldn't an equitable and simpler solution be
to kill the Bush Brothers' War on Women and Children? How silly of me!
That might mean the empowerment of women and children. BTW, the Broward
County prosecutor has declined to prosecute .
> Marley and her gang saying "see, we told you these laws wouldn't work and
just
> look at these poor women who thought they could keep things secret and it
would
> all go away."
I know you're not a big fan of history, Bill, but there's a rich history of
baby abandonment out there.
>
> Marley likes to have it both ways. Fight the laws and if as a result
something
> passes that is flawed, then point out that the flawed law betrays women.
Nice
> Catch-22, but it is not the first to emanate from the Foundress of BN.
Since we haven't been involved in baby dump legislation for months, I have
no idea what you're talking about. Sometime back, you wrote an amusing
essay on IAVAAN mentioning that BN was some secret powerful agents working
against the Maryland proposal. I'd like some documentation on that one. It
was news to me.
>
> Marley's perfect Safe Haven law, of course, doesn't exist. Her
alternative is
> the same-old same-old, which means women being in the grasp of those
social
> workers who are so adept at guilt-tripping, those judges whose hearts
bleed at
> the thought of hit-and-run lovers being deprived of their paternal rights,
and
> kids caught for months and years in the dysfunctional child welfare
system.
Rather than put into the adoption spam grinder? Some people don't deserve
to have their kids; many do. Martial status shouldn't disqualify anyone; or
are you advocating Charles Murray's plan to distribute the poor amongst the
rich.
> No, Don, it's not that Marley doesn't get it. She gets it very well, but
> reality and truth just don't square with her ideological view of adoption
as
> she thinks it ought to be.
And just what is that?
So she does her research and she spends her
> considerable brain-power to try to kill the laws that prevent killing.
Prove it. You can't because it's all a big secret.
>
> And some day in the future, she'll put out something that will probably be
as
> pathetic as Adam Pertman's "ADOPTION NATION," perhaps under the title
"Baby
> Dump Nation," or some such provocative label.
>
> Meanwhile, dozens of babies are alive today and living in adoptive
families
> because of these laws.
Prove it. You can't because it's a big secret.
And some babies are alive and living with their birth
> mothers or extended families because these laws gave women an option that
> provided a literal breathing space for a newborn. And many women need not
look
> over their shoulder for the police, wondering how many years they'll have
to do
> in prison.
The likelihood of prosecution is small.
>
> What gripes Marley the most is the anonymous nature of the Safe Haven
concept,
> the very aspect that gives these women the flexibility they need to choose
life
> for their newborns.
And anhiliation the identity of the adopted person. You have no damned
idea to know what it's like to be an anonymous person, Bill. To have no
history, no context, no human right to an identity. While I personally like
the idea of adoptees being the poster children of post-modernism, not many
do.
>
> Happily, for the babies and their mothers, Marley's opposition has not
been all
> that effective.
It's the long haul. Some of these laws are sunsetted. It's your burden to
prove the actual and fiscal effectiveness of them. We have all the time in
the world.
>
> But she never gives up, nor does her band of disciples.
>
> One never knows the time or type of attack that will next be launched.
From the master of stealth!
>
> Meanwhile, it is gratifying to an elderly, essentially retired guy like me
to
> see that the Safe Haven Movement has very strong grassroots support.
That's
> why I can enjoy my rocking chair and only rarely toddle overe to the
keyboard
> to see what's the latest on a.a.
Ah Bill, you're a young goat at heart. You're eternal youth, spring, a
veritable wood nymph in the forest of modernity. . You'll be doing this
when the rest of us are off to the old people's home.
Marley
Jackie C
<searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
> Is this the going rate for a human being
>now?
I wonder what it is.
Jackie
Marley Greiner
"Jackie C" <jda...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:0kubcu48i1sseg183...@4ax.com...
I have no idea. I'd buy a cockroach farm before I'd buy one of those little
pukers.
Marley
Jackie C
<maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The sight of a child welfare delivery system that
>prefers to see women give up their own flesh and blood rather than furnish
>them a few dollars for food, housing, and vocational training is an
>abomination The message is clear: Poor, hungry, homeless? Then give
>your baby to the state and you can walk away free of guilt and maybe have
>better chance at a shelder?
Well said Marley..
Jackie
Jackie C
wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:12:16 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
><maddog...@worldnet.att.net> calmly exclaimed:
>
>The Eminent Dr. William Pierce writes:
>>> Truth to tell, Ron, I don't think there are any reliable data yet on
>>> the reasons why women are choosing to use Safe Haven laws.
>>
>>And how to you propose to get that data, Bill, since it's all our little
>>secret? It's a perfect set-up. No documentation, no accountability.
>>
>>Marley
>
>Hum a few bars, Mar...I think I've heard that song before.
>
>pb...
I am still looking for the papers I signed..
Jackie..
Jackie C
wrote:
>Jackie C wrote:
>>
><re safe haven laws>
>
>> What of the woman who gets the message that it is okay to have her
>> baby in a closet? That it is okay to not seek medical care for herself
>> and her baby?
>>
>> IMO if women could easily access free unbiased medical care that is
>> totally private from the people she does not want to know about the
>> baby..then there would be far fewer dumpster babies..
>
>Consider a person like Tarin. She did not seek care for herself for 8.5
>months. It wasn't because of safe-haven laws, AFAIK.
What I am asking is what kind of message is being sent out in the US.
Is the message saying its okay to not seek medical care when
pregnant.. you will be forgiven if the baby is born with medical
problems.. or has medical problems because of an unsupervised birth?
>It's true that if women could get free anonymous medical care, there
>would be fewer dumpster babies. But that would be pretty much the same
>as safe haven laws...the French "Birth under the name of X" or whatever
>it's actually called.
Could you elaborate Rupa..
>
>(I personally think safe haven laws affect so few that it matters not if
>they exist or not.)
I think they send out a very bad message..
Being a responsible human being, when pregnant, is very very important
IMO..
Jackie
Jackie C
<searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
> Accountability for ones actions is more important, than
>teaching people they can hide their mistakes.
The potential aparents who coerce the pregnant girl are not (at times)
held accountable..
The pregnant woman who does not seek medical care is not held
responsible (in some states).
Scary stuff..
Jackie
Roberta
From: "Marley Greiner" maddog...@worldnet.att.net
Message-id: <8qnx8.47198$QC1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Marley
>>
My brother (bio) once bought my other (bio) brother two giant African
cockroaches for Christmas. I think the giver was about 18 and the recipient 13.
I don't think my mother forgave either of them before her dying day many years
later.
Steve White
"Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
> Who died and made you god of Usenet Donny?\
Don't start :-)
steve
Johnny
--
Johnny
"Steve White" <ju...@say.no.to.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:just-93A402.2...@netnews.attbi.com...
Steve White
piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself) wrote:
> Most hospitals in the US have various forms of passive security in place,
> like video cameras. Most ER rooms are bedlam. People concerned about
> remaining anonymous are not all illogical twits.
But in this situation, they are either seriously mistaken, or have a
serious emotional/psychological problem.
> To make it possible for women like these to safely leave their babies
> at hospitals, some in the USA and abroad have installed secure, safe,
> heated, but quite anonymous places where babies can be placed.
Rest assured, Bill, at my hospital we'd never put a baby in an oven.
> This option bothers people like Marley to no end, but it offers
> to some women and babies a choice that guarantees immediate access to
> pediatric or neonatal care.
It solves none of the other concerns about baby dumps. I'm pretty sure
we don't have one of these at our hospital, but I'm going to check
anyway. If we do, I'll be raising the issue with our hosptial
administrators.
steve
Marley Greiner
> In article <20020423065751...@mb-cv.aol.com>,
> piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself) wrote:
>
>
> > Most hospitals in the US have various forms of passive security in
place,
> > like video cameras. Most ER rooms are bedlam. People concerned about
> > remaining anonymous are not all illogical twits.
>
>
> But in this situation, they are either seriously mistaken, or have a
> serious emotional/psychological problem.
>
>
> > To make it possible for women like these to safely leave their babies
> > at hospitals, some in the USA and abroad have installed secure, safe,
> > heated, but quite anonymous places where babies can be placed.
>
>
> Rest assured, Bill, at my hospital we'd never put a baby in an oven.
If you go over to www.iavaan.org and click on the Safe Haven updates, then
the news stories, you can download a couple pictures of the "baby latches"
from Germany. It'll be at the top of the page before the rest of the
articles.
>
>
> > This option bothers people like Marley to no end, but it offers
> > to some women and babies a choice that guarantees immediate access to
> > pediatric or neonatal care.
>
>
> It solves none of the other concerns about baby dumps. I'm pretty sure
> we don't have one of these at our hospital, but I'm going to check
> anyway. If we do, I'll be raising the issue with our hosptial
> administrators.
Steve, while you're at it, could you try to pick up a copy of the safe haven
receiving guidelines/procedures for the state. I'd like to see them. I'm
getting Ohio's from a fire Lt. friend of mine--who hates the law, as does
the chief.
BTW, I was looking through some pictures tonight and came across of you
carrying a big mother of a sign at the Chicago demonstration.
Marley
> steve
LilMtnCbn
>From: "Marley Greiner" maddog...@worldnet.att.net
>Message-id: <4Iqx8.47654$QC1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>I'm
>getting Ohio's from a fire Lt. friend of mine--who hates the law, as does
>the chief.
Marley, same here. We live in a small mountain town, and unless there's a fire
or an accident, there is NOBODY at the firehouse for a day or so at a time.
What if someone were to leave a baby there and it died from exposure. Who
would be responsible then?
Ronald Morgan
lilm...@aol.comnospam wrote on 4/23/02 9:45 PM:
That's why firehouses and police stations aren't designated as safe havens
in CA. In a bit of political jiggery pokery the fire and police unions
traded support for the bill for getting written out of it.
Ron
rkbose
>
> What I am asking is what kind of message is being sent out in the US.
> Is the message saying its okay to not seek medical care when
> pregnant.. you will be forgiven if the baby is born with medical
> problems.. or has medical problems because of an unsupervised birth?
I don't think women can be prosecuted for failing to get prenatal care,
or for that matter, doing things that may prove harmful to fetal
development. Nor is it legally necessary for births to be supervised.
But I think that generally speaking, proper care is encouraged.
>
> >It's true that if women could get free anonymous medical care, there
> >would be fewer dumpster babies. But that would be pretty much the same
> >as safe haven laws...the French "Birth under the name of X" or whatever
> >it's actually called.
>
> Could you elaborate Rupa..
Something I read. I think Marley knows more about this. In France, a
woman may enter a hospital, and give birth anonymously, and leave the
baby behind.
Rupa