In Nebraska, you can dump all your unwanted kids off at a hospital
Mon, 2008-09-29 00:59
#1
In Nebraska, you can dump all your unwanted kids off at a hospital
Mon, 2008-09-29 00:59
#2
quote:
Between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Wednesday, three fathers walked into two hospitals in Omaha and abandoned their children. One left nine siblings, ages 1 to 17.The men, unless proven to have abused the kids, won't face prosecution under a new Nebraska law that is unique in the nation. The law allows parents to leave a child at a licensed hospital without explaining why.
Other parents have also used the law to leave their children. Last week, a 13-year-old girl was left. The week before that, two boys ages 11 and 15. In all, fathers, mothers and caregivers in six families — some single parents — have bailed on 14 kids, including seven teens, since the law took effect in July.
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-25-Left-kids_N.htm]The idea was to protect unwanted babies but...oopsie![/url]
Mon, 2008-09-29 01:55
#3
bagkitty
I am so incredibly fucking happy that my parents didn't somehow opt to live in Nebraska. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-09-29 05:16
#4
Life...what a BEAUTIFUL choice... [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-09-29 06:02
#5
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Life...what a BEAUTIFUL choice... [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
What do you mean by this comment?
Mon, 2008-09-29 06:50
#6
According to the article, the bill was written "to protect newborns from abandonment". I don't see anything wrong with that goal. The bill was badly written, unfortunately, and had "unintended consequences". By the way, the linked article claims that all 50 states have safe haven laws, though other sources I read say it's 46 or 47. I remember, years ago, reading a book about an old European tradition of leaving infants at monasteries and convents. This tradition is mentioned in [url=http://url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/world/europe/28rome.html]this NY Times[/url] article, about the return of the "foundling wheel" in Rome and across Europe.
It's not clear to me what the legal situation is in Canada. Section 218 of the Criminal Code reads as follows: "Every one who unlawfully abandons or exposes a child who is under the age of ten years, so that its life is or is likely to be endangered or its health is or is likely to be permanently injured, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months." So it's clearly illegal to leave an infant or young child alone somewhere where "its life is or is likely to be endangered or its health is or is likely to be permanently injured." But it would not seem to be an offence to leave an infant or young child at a hospital: presumably, at a hospital, the child's life would not be "likely to be endangered", nor his or her health "likely to be permanently injured". Hmmm.
Mon, 2008-09-29 07:46
#7
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
[b]According to the article, the bill was written "to protect newborns from abandonment". I don't see anything wrong with that goal. The bill was badly written, unfortunately, and had "unintended consequences". By the way, the linked article claims that all 50 states have safe haven laws, though other sources I read say it's 46 or 47. I remember, years ago, reading a book about an old European tradition of leaving infants at monasteries and convents. This tradition is mentioned in [url=http://url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/world/europe/28rome.html]this NY Times[/url] article, about the return of the "foundling wheel" in Rome and across Europe.It's not clear to me what the legal situation is in Canada. Section 218 of the Criminal Code reads as follows: "Every one who unlawfully abandons or exposes a child who is under the age of ten years, so that its life is or is likely to be endangered or its health is or is likely to be permanently injured, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months." So it's clearly illegal to leave an infant or young child alone somewhere where "its life is or is likely to be endangered or its health is or is likely to be permanently injured." But it would not seem to be an offence to leave an infant or young child at a hospital: presumably, at a hospital, the child's life would not be "likely to be endangered", nor his or her health "likely to be permanently injured". Hmmm.[/b]
Having worked in child protection I thought I would comment on this. Your interpretation is veering in the right direction Martha - in that the parents can only be charged if they abandoned the child in an unsafe place. Leaving children at the hospital would cause them to lose the right to custody of these children (obviously not a concern for these Nebraskans parents), but they would not be charged with anything. The only cases I worked on where parents ever faced criminal charges were for physical and/or sexual abuse. The large majority of the cases involved parental neglect, often stemming from substance abuse. The only legal ramification at all is possible loss of custody to the State.
So, the thread title is accurate for Canada as well. Any parent could call up child welfare at any time and say that they do not want to parent anymore and their kids could be picked up and placed in foster care. They will have the right to parental visits (supervised) etc. and a period of time to prove themselves as parents again and possibly regain custody before the State pursues permanent legal custody and an adoptive home. If they don't come forward or show any interest in visits, the social workers involved would search out any next of kin and if this was not an option then they would pursue permanent legal care.
Unless they just leave (and leave the children unsupervised at home and therefore in a dangerous situation), they face absolutely no consequences.
Due to some of the ages, the children in the story face teen years in various foster homes and group homes. There are not many people willing to adopt children over the age of 5, let alone teenagers.
Mon, 2008-09-29 07:57
#8
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]What do you mean by this comment?[/b]
It's the new advertising slogan by the anti-choice lobby.
Mon, 2008-09-29 07:59
#9
Maysie
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-09-29 08:02
#10
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
I really do not get the joke.
Mon, 2008-09-29 08:16
#11
I wasn't joking. That's an actual billboard that I saw. Perhaps BCG was laughing at the inherent irony of such a slogan.
Mon, 2008-09-29 08:21
#12
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]I wasn't joking. That's an actual billboard that I saw. Perhaps BCG was laughing at the inherent irony of such a slogan.[/b]
OK - but this thread is not about abortion - I am confused about why Ken brought that into this thread. I guess that is how I didn't get the joke.
Mon, 2008-09-29 08:23
#13
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Life...what a BEAUTIFUL choice... [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
Are you implying it would have been better if another choice had been made in regards to this children before they became children?
Mon, 2008-09-29 08:26
#14
Ghislaine, it's obvious that a law "to protect newborns from abandonment" is designed to complement anti-choice policies.
Mon, 2008-09-29 08:34
#15
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]Ghislaine, it's obvious that a law "to protect newborns from abandonment" is designed to complement anti-choice policies.[/b]
How is that obviously designed to complement anti-choice policies? It is about newborns. It if states that it is about newborns, than it would have no bearing on abortion law, would it not?
Either way we effectively have such a legal situation in all of Canada in practice - and obviously this situation has nothing to do with the lack of an abortion law.
You can abandon your children without legal consequence if they are not put in an unsafe situation at any time and you do not physically or sexually harm them. This is true for infants right up until age 16 in my jurisdiction.
Mon, 2008-09-29 09:02
#16
[url=http://www.naral.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/stat... ranks last among all 50 states and the District of Columbia in efforts to help women avoid unintended pregnancies[/url]
Mon, 2008-09-29 09:05
#17
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b][url=http://www.naral.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/stat... ranks last among all 50 states and the District of Columbia in efforts to help women avoid unintended pregnancies[/url][/b]
Yes - but that is not what this thread is about. (If it is about abortion - shouldn't it be in the feminism forum as well?)
The legal situation that caused the start of this thread is effectively the exact same legal situation that we currently have in Canada. Can someone tell me how it affects abortion rights?
Mon, 2008-09-29 09:30
#18
Holy *&^%. You asked what Ken's remark referred to. I told you. You said you didn't get it. I spelled it out for you. You say that's not what the thread's about. I think many here would say, yes, actually, it is what the thread is about. A law Nebraska has just passed, to facilitate unplanned or unwanted births (in a state that is notoriously anti-choice), is coming back to bite them in the ass. That's funny. If you don't get it, I can't help you any more. And in fact, whether this is a legal possibility in Canada or not, is not the point. Although I'm sure many Canadians are unaware of this.
Mon, 2008-09-29 09:36
#19
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]Holy *&^%. You asked what Ken's remark referred to. I told you. You said you didn't get it. I spelled it out for you. You say that's not what the thread's about. I think many here would say, yes, actually, it is what the thread is about. A law Nebraska has just passed, to facilitate unplanned or unwanted births (in a state that is notoriously anti-choice), is coming back to bite them in the ass. That's funny. If you don't get it, I can't help you any more. And in fact, whether this is a legal possibility in Canada or not, is not the point. Although I'm sure many Canadians are unaware of this.[/b]
I understand the intended joke now - but I guess I just don't see what is funny about it. These children were unwanted before this bill was passed. I just wanted to point out that the thread title could just as easily read Canada instead of Nebraska. How exactly is the Nebraskan bill anti-choice if it the same legal situation that we have in Canada? You can drop off a child at a hospital, child welfare office, police station - anywhere, any age - and not be charged. The only legal ramification is that you may, down the road, lose the right to custody permanently.
These dropped-off Nebraskan children were obviously not wanted or cared for before this law and now their parents think they have an easy way to dump them on someone else due to the publicity surrounding this new law. These children are going to have a rough adolescence - not funny at all.
Mon, 2008-09-29 10:10
#20
Well, you're right, it isn't funny. Too bad Nebraska has the kind of legislators that would make a law explicitly enabling the abandonment of children. And that's exactly what they got.
Wed, 2008-10-01 04:27
#21
Ghislaine my point was(using the smug and rather insipid anti-choice slogan now popular in the U.S.)was that this child's having been born wasn't a particularly happy thing for the child. It was meant to be bitterly ironic.
I'm horrified about what happened here, and I think it probably happened at least in part because it is damn near impossible to get contraception, let alone an abortion, in a state like Nebraska.
I was commenting on the combination of sanctimony and apathy among some of our "evangelical" American "Christians", a combination that produces such sickening outcomes all over the U.S.
I thought it would be obvious that I wasn't making light of the actual situation. It should've been.
Does that clear things up for you?
[ 01 October 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
Wed, 2008-10-01 05:00
#22
Maysie
I need to pop in and explain that I actually [i]didn't[/i] know that "Life what a beautiful choice" is an actual slogan. I thought Ken Burch was being sarcastic, and that jas was making that up to be funny. Yikes-orama.
Now that I know, my grin response above is not appropriate. I apologize.
I was horrified and deeply saddened by this story. I won't delete my grin emoticon, as I think the discourse of this thread is confusing enough with all the explaining and counter-explaining, but I'd like to metaphorically take it back.
On the larger scope, of course "safe haven" laws promote lack of choice for women who are unexpectedly pregnant, and reinforce all anti-choice dogma. Real child/baby/toddler protection legislation would be, let's say, more severe punishments for abusers of children/babies/toddlers. Being pro-active to prevent violence against children would involve wacky ideas like parenting classes for new parents of all ages (or even for everybody, now that I'm being wacky), sex education in high school, to name just two. Real pro-child policies would be having more free/accessible child-care services, greater support for mothers/fathers/children in the form of tax breaks, and support services, etc.
[ 01 October 2008: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
Wed, 2008-10-01 05:04
#23
Agent 204
I don't know that there's any need to apologize for the grin emoticon. The situation is awful, of course, but there's a certain humour in the (presumably) anti-choicers' policies coming back to bite them. But then, I have a dark sense of humour.
Wed, 2008-10-01 05:42
#24
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Ghislaine my point was(using the smug and rather insipid anti-choice slogan now popular in the U.S.)was that this child's having been born wasn't a particularly happy thing for the child. It was meant to be bitterly ironic.[ 01 October 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ][/b]
What a horrible thing to say. I spent years working with children in the same situation and I do not think they would have been better off not being born. I believed they had dignity and value and tried to instill in them the idea that they could overcome their situation and work with them to find their personal talents and interests and personality.
Wed, 2008-10-01 06:03
#25
Maysie
Ghislaine, the problem is that there are no service/supports ideas offered by the pro-lifers, except for the hyper-individualized solutions such as individual self-esteem raising, etc. Many many children don't get such experiences, and they grow up and join society. Think about it.
I've worked with young women who've had to give up their children, or have had their custody rights severely limited, due to their life circumstances. This isn't a small issue.
The pro-lifers are good at saying every child is precious, etc, but not so good at putting in systems for children who need to be removed from the home for their safety and well-being (NOT for the convenience of the parents as the story in the OP mentions). Never mind ongoing free support for parents.
The solution you offer is a "too late" solution, similar to the job I had. Many solutions are "too late" solutions, such as shelters for women fleeing violence. OF COURSE we need those solutions, but they are completely RE-active, and will always be so, until we can change the reasons they exist in the first place.
Being PRO-active, reaching into the future since we can't change the past, isn't it better that all children who are conceived and born are wanted and loved? And that sex doesn't have to be about conception? (If you think about it, the times sex [b]is[/b] for conception is very very small compared to all the other times it isn't. This covers same-sex sex, as well as "recreational sex" for all, yes? This phrasing is adapted from John Stoltenberg, btw) And if we are to move towards that kind of world, it begins with the boring and unsexy ideas I mentioned, sex ed, parenting classes, etc.
Don't forget, I say these things now because I'm optimistic in the mornings. I've never figured out why. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-10-01 06:06
#26
Ghislaine, I can see that you're trying really, really hard to paint pro-choice babblers as heartless monsters who think that kids in difficult homes should never have been born. It's part of your usual "skirting the anti-choice edge" routine here on babble.
You will stop now.
Wed, 2008-10-01 06:17
#27
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Ghislaine, I can see that you're trying really, really hard to paint pro-choice babblers as heartless monsters who think that kids in difficult homes should never have been born. It's part of your usual "skirting the anti-choice edge" routine here on babble.You will stop now.[/b]
I am not painting anyone as anything - Ken made a tasteless joke implying that these kids would have been better off not being born. This plays into the hands of pro-lifers i my opinion. I am pro-choice and have stated so many times. Once a decision is made to have a child and it is born, than he or she deserves respect. Any comment that they their mother should have made another choice is hurtful and offensive. The large majority of pro-choicers never make comments like this and I would never imply or say that they do.
I agree with bcg in that the services, supports for parents are not there. I have seen this first hand. Especially, especially for women being abused physically. Some of the worst situations I have been in (and contributing to the reasons I left the profession) are those situations where a child has to come in care due to a parent not being able to secure adequate housing. This often happens on reserves. Another reason i could not stand it, was the "dark humour", in which clients were made fun of and it was assumed that children in care were teh "clients of the future" and it was inevitable that they would be getting their children apprehended down the road. I saw shades of this attitude in Ken,s comment and reacted strongly. Saying someone should never have been born is not helpful or respectful.
Anyways, the thread subject is accurate for CAnada - you can drop off your kids and face 0 consequences if you leave them in a safe place. Is this an anti-choice policy? Should it be changed in Canada?
Wed, 2008-10-01 06:40
#28
It wasn't so much a joke as a bitterly sarcastic comment.
It should be taken in the same spirit as Jonathan Swift's famous and famously controversial essay "A Modest Proposal".
It was also meant as a slam at those anti-choicers who don't care about the consequences of their convictions.
I value and revere children. I think all of those who were born should have a legal(in fact Constitutional)right to a decent life and a decent standard of living.
Only a tiny minority of the opponents of reproductive choice agree with this. Most are enthusiastic cheerleaders for right-wing cuts in social services, for the ludicrous "abstinence-only" approach to sex-education, and to the demonization of single mothers and the insistence on preventing those single mothers from having a chance at a future, insisting instead that those women should always have to live a life defined by stigma.
A lot of these people also still think that those born "out of wedlock" should themselves face stigma.
The only anti-choice types who are different than this are the tiny, hopelessly outnumbered "seamless garment" wing of the anti-choice movement, the ones who oppose abortion but also oppose the death penalty, war, and the exploitation of workers.
The kids in the Nebraska situation are already doomed to a life without hope or purpose, at least as far as I can see.
I'd be glad to be wrong, but Ghislaine knows as well as I how unlikely that is.
Almost no "pro-lifers" actually care about kids like that though.
If they did, they wouldn't vote for the right-wing parties that are obsessed with making life unliveable for kids like this.
Those kids are the victims of "pro-life" values, since those values(except when expressed by the tiny Seamless Garment minority)are always anti-progressive, anti-child and anti-humanist.
So I'm not wishing the kids dead, I'm just expressing what antichoicers have likely doomed them to. Abandoned people are almost never given a chance in western society.
[ 01 October 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
Wed, 2008-10-01 06:44
#29
Ken, this whole idea that people from impoverished backgrounds are "doomed to a life without hope or purpose" is kind of offensive.
I don't believe in the "American Dream" but at the same time, it is possible to look at people less fortunate than yourself and not consider their lives to be completely worthless. Don't you think? You can fight for social justice without dehumanizing those who need it the most.
Wed, 2008-10-01 06:47
#30
I consider the poor to be my brothers and sisters. Nothing in my post was dehumanizing to them.
And I didn't say all kids from impoverished backgrounds were doomed. I was talking about abandoned kids. The people who passed these kinds of laws in Nebraska also cheered when Aid to Families with Dependent Children was killed in the U.S. in the Nineties. They cheered when contraception access was made harder and when proposals for state or federally funded day care were killed.
In the U.S. and Canada, most "pro-lifers"(again with the honorable exception the "Seamless Garment" types) are the enemies of the poor.
I don't consider anyone's lives worthless. And I want a world where no child is ever abandoned.
But my whole point was that the right-wing pro-lifers consider this situation to be something to be proud of and don't really give a damn about those kids, given the futures those people do everything in their power to trap those kids in.
I'd be glad to see these kids have better lives and I work for a world where no one is abandoned. Non-Seamless Garment pro-lifers don't care about those things, however.
My point is that I see this situation as an indictment of "pro-life" sanctimony. OK?
If all anti-choice types had humane, socialist values(rather than most of them simply being driven by hatred of women), my feelings on this would be different.
[ 01 October 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
[ 01 October 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
Wed, 2008-10-01 07:09
#31
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]
Once a decision is made to have a child and it is born, than he or she deserves respect. Any comment that they their mother should have made another choice is hurtful and offensive. [/b]
I guess the WHOLE POINT of this thread is that, in places like Nebraska, with few options to make anOTHER decision, these are not actually decisions, they are actions carried out in an environment that has already removed the other options. What part of this don't you understand or agree with? And why are you focussing on the obvious heartbreak for the kids - a fact which is not lost on ANYONE here. It's the ideological environment there that created this situation. Why are you trying to dump on Babblers?
Wed, 2008-10-01 08:41
#32
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]I guess the WHOLE POINT of this thread is that, in places like Nebraska, with few options to make anOTHER decision, these are not actually decisions, they are actions carried out in an environment that has already removed the other options. What part of this don't you understand or agree with? And why are you focussing on the obvious heartbreak for the kids - a fact which is not lost on ANYONE here. It's the ideological environment there that created this situation. Why are you trying to dump on Babblers?[/b]
I get that Ken was making a sarcastic comment. Nebraska is not known for choice and needs improvements in this area - but my whole point is we cannot go back in time for any of these unwanted children and offer their mothers an atmosphere of greater choice (or assume which choice the mothers would have made - maybe this is the choice they would have made?). I have heard statements to poor mothers (and by social workers of all people) that they were dumb for not aborting or that poor people should only make one choice due to their income level. Kids hear this and pick up on this attitude and take it to heart. I have heard it stated by social workers that after a certain number of kids in care, women should have their tubes tied by the State or be told they [i]should[/i]have an abortion. I think you mean well - the way it was worded just brought me back to all of these statements and attitudes that disgusted me so much in the field.
I am not trying to dump on babblers, I was trying to cause Ken to think about how an ironic or sarcastic comment can be hurtful. We also do not know the backgrounds class-wise of many babblers here.
Ken, your comment after that - about these kids basically being hopeless etc. is wrong as well. That is the worst attitude you could ever display to a kid in this situation. If you researched your favourite artists, or various other vocations I am sure you find a wide spectrum of backgrounds.
I 100% agree that a large part of right-wing folks who claim to be "pro-life" have no interest in any supports for children once they are born, or their families. We need to fight for these improvements without assuming that poor women should have or would have made a certain choice and that abandoned children are hopeless.
Wed, 2008-10-01 08:46
#33
I didn't say the kids THEMSELVES were hopeless. I said their situation was bleak. Nothing I've said in this whole thread was an attack on the kids themselves.
Rather, my whole point was to comment on the policies and the broader social values that led to human beings being abandoned.
Children are human. The poor are as valuable as anybody else. And I'm really getting tired of people twisting my words this morning.
Sun, 2009-01-04 19:00
#34
remind
Steve Wilkos is dangerous to women, and I would like to see his show gone from the air waves.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Sun, 2009-01-04 19:23
#35
Are you sure you've got the right thread, remind?
(Not that I disagree with you about Wilkos. He's a psycho and the set of his show looks like a dungeon.)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Our Demands Most Moderate are/
We Only Want The World!
-James Connolly
Sun, 2009-01-04 20:02
#36
remind
LOL, this thread just reminded me of his show, that I happened to see for the first time last week and then I made a point of watching it a couple of times more to make sure it was as misogynistic, as the one show I saw was, so I thought I would post my sentiments about it here.
Feminist and women should be outraged and boycotting his show actually.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Sun, 2009-01-04 20:05
#37
Well, with Wilkos, I don't think it's just misogyny. Seems to me he pretty much hates everybody. I think Wilkos is how Elliott Stabler from Law & Order: SVU will turn out in another ten years or so.
Thanks for the clarification of your intent.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Our Demands Most Moderate are/
We Only Want The World!
-James Connolly