Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
A new look at baby 'safe haven' laws, After SCOTUS hearing
After SCOTUS hearing, a new look at baby ‘safe haven’ laws
?w=2000&ssl=1
Nicole Olson and her son Porter, 10, look at his baby pictures at their home, Thursday, Dec. 17, 2021, in Phoenix. Porter was relinquished at birth through what’s…
by: ASTRID GALVAN , Associated Press
Posted: Dec 22, 2021 / 01:44 AM PST
Updated: Dec 22, 2021 / 01:54 AM PST
PHOENIX (AP) — For years, Nicole Olson had longed for a baby and gone through a rigorous and emotional adoption process. Then Olson and her husband got a call asking if they’d like to adopt a newborn. That day. As soon as possible.
The baby had been relinquished through what’s known as a safe haven law. Such laws, which exist in every state, allow parents to leave a baby at a safe location without criminal consequences. The laws began to pass in state legislatures in the early 2000s in response to reports of gruesome baby killings and abandonments, which received copious media attention. Infants are at the highest risk of being killed in their first day of life, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Olson rushed to a Target, filled four carts with baby stuff and was home with the newborn boy by dinnertime. Ten years later, the baby Olson and her husband, Michael, named Porter is thriving. He’s athletic, funny and has adjusted well after a rough time during the pandemic, Olson said.
Safe haven laws drew attention this month when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett raisedthe role they play in the debate around abortion rights. Barrett made the comments during a hearing this month on aMississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — and possibly upend abortion rights established by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion throughout the United States, and upheld by the court’s 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Much more at the link...
https://www.kget.com/health/after-scotus-hearing-a-new-look-at-baby-safe-haven-laws/
🌻❤🌻pants
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Barrett, with a long record of personal opposition to abortion, zeroed in on a key argument against forcing women into parenthood, suggesting safe haven laws address those concerns. “Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem?” she asked.
That is one of the most jaw droppingly pea brained questions ever. AS IF having to raise the child is the only possible reason someone wouldn't want to go through 9 months of being pregnant plus the pain and risks of giving birth.
When I was faced with an unplanned pregnancy as a full-time college student with very meager financial resources, the idea of having the baby and then giving it up for adoption was absolutely a no go for me. The thought of having a child somewhere in this world, being raised by people I knew nothing about was unbearable to even imagine. (This was before open adoptions were a thing, so that's how it would have worked.) I thought about it, a little, because I think it's a good idea to consider every possible option when making such an important decision, and my gut reaction was not just no, but HELL NO. I listened to my gut and chose to terminate the pregnancy, and I have never regretted it.
The thought of vitally important issues like reproductive rights being decided by someone with such a complete lack of imagination and empathy is appalling to me. The woman is 50 years old and thinks like a 12 year old. My own daughter had a ton more insight at 12 than Barrett does now.
