First infant in Kentucky surrendered anonymously at fire station Safe Haven 'baby box'
Source: USA Today
Kentucky has seen its first infant anonymously dropped off at one of its "baby box" safe surrender locations.
At a news conference Friday, Safe Haven Baby Boxes founder and CEO Monica Kelsey said the child was dropped off within the last seven days at a Bowling Green Fire Department location, declining to be more specific to protect anonymity. She said fire department staff was able to tend to the child in less than 90 seconds.
The child is the 24th in the country to be surrendered at one of more than 130 baby boxes and drawers the organization has established across nine states.
Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/02/12/safe-haven-baby-box-kentucky/11242752002/
This is from an old article on NPR:
U.N. Committee Calls For An End To Centuries-Old Practice Of 'Baby Boxes'
...
But in a meeting last month, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child decided that baby boxes only encourage parents to give away babies, and is now advocating for a complete ban on the practice.
Maria Herczog, a child welfare advocate and member of the committee, argued that the boxes are a bad message for society, and that children may be abandoned by male relatives or pimps, against a mother's wishes.
"These boxes violate children's rights and also the rights of parents to get help from the state to raise their families," she says.
Read more:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/11/26/165942545/u-n-committee-calls-for-an-end-to-centuries-old-practice-of-baby-boxes
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LonePirate
(14,366 posts)
BWdem4life
(2,997 posts)Camera technology ya know.
Of course, word would get out pretty quick and it would defeat the whole idea.
StevieM
(10,578 posts)They want the babies to be placed for adoption. They want absolutely no sex outside of heterosexual marriage and for EVERY SINGLE CHILD born out of wedlock to be given up for adoption.
raising2moredems
(752 posts)They also like to punish and now that "homes" for "unwed" mothers basically don't exist (I'm talking of those in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and into the 70s), the opportunity to slut shame is harder these days.
Caucasian baby? If so, curious to know the selling price.
StevieM
(10,578 posts)That is the purpose to coerced adoptions. They want the woman to suffer the pain of losing her child for the rest of her life.
roamer65
(37,945 posts)Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if in red states it starts happening a few years out.
…sort of…
Aristus
(72,121 posts)then let’s get a living wage going, decent affordable healthcare, decent affordable childcare, and paid maternity leave up in this AO.
MissMillie
(39,641 posts)If those things were available, there wouldn't be a need for the boxes (well, not as much of a need).
Abortion access too. Though even in states where there is that access some women will choose not to terminate a pregnancy, even if they choose not to raise a child.
To me, the whole point is that ALL options need to be available--including the services that families need to stay healthy and viable (living wage, health care, child care, etc).
The GOP status quo of course is to remove all choices--limit women and families to the behavior that the state chooses for them (and of course, the state has no intention of financially supporting any of it).
It's indentured servitude for females between the ages of 10 and 50.
efhmc
(16,605 posts)I can just see later on one parent saying this was done with0ut my permission and the adoptive parents do not have a right to this child.And with DNA testing, this could be proven.
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)
cab67
(3,737 posts)Many (most?) states have laws that won't allow reversing an adoption after a certain amount of time. Ostensibly, this is to avoid disrupting the child's life by removing it from the family that raised it since a very early age. State and/or local child welfare agencies made a mistake and wrongly severed one or both biological parents' parental rights? The biological father wasn't given adequate notice? The bio mother was convicted of a crime against her child, but was later exonerated and declared innocent? It wouldn't matter - after a legally-set length of time has elapsed, the adoption is permanent.
(I could be wrong, but I read somewhere that they might not even reverse an adoption if the baby was abducted as a newborn and passed on to adoptive parents through informal networks. I desperately hope I'm wrong about that.)
There are perfectly good reasons for a woman to anonymously put her baby up for adoption - if the pregnancy results from rape or incest, for example, or if the father is known to be violent and abusive. But there are also not-so-good reasons.
Some states - Utah comes to mind - are infamous for having inadequate notification procedures, meaning an out-of-state father might have his parental rights terminated before he's even aware the child has been born. I'm not talking about rapists or abusive men, either - I'm talking about men who want to raise their child, but are denied the opportunity.
It's not a simple thing. I can see the charitable rationale behind these drop-off stations, but there has to be some sort of oversight.
Please note - I am NOT criticizing adoption. I'm raising an adopted child myself. I just think there should be diligence way above and beyond what's expected in other legal procedures.
efhmc
(16,605 posts)Out of hearts or I would give you one.
bucolic_frolic
(55,022 posts)
BOSSHOG
(44,738 posts)(That’s you Catholics) would step forward with a minimum of 18 years of financial support for any such child. Turn your mansions (you call them rectory’s) into nursery’s for baby’s that you force to come into this world with your values. Or maybe you could give up your tax exempt status (Ill gotten gains) since Catholics don’t give a fuck about the separation of church and state.
Full Disclosure. I am a recovering Catholic.
Elessar Zappa
(16,385 posts)much more of a problem in this country than Catholics. A majority of catholics support choice, evangelicals do not, a majority of Catholics approve of marriage equality, evangelicals don’t. Most Christian nationalists aren’t Catholic but evangelical. The only place where rightwing Catholics have power is the Supreme Court, unfortunately.
BOSSHOG
(44,738 posts)Catholics “are not” but the Catholic Church is.
Let’s do away with the separation of church and state, and turn loose the assessors. Organized religion is a cancer. So let’s tax them. Never happen. I know. Or maybe I don’t know. Pisses me off because I unlike conservatives am incredibly fond of freedom.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)BOSSHOG
(44,738 posts)Next county over 600k plus. The local priest hasn’t taken a vow of poverty. Awesome home. Tax exempt. Catholics spent 4 million plus trying to ban abortion while maintaining their tax exempt status. 100,000 children on avg go to bed hungry every night in Kansas. A microcosm of mansions built and hungry children. Other “mansions” built for priests in the state in the past 5 years. And if they have a sexual indiscretion they’ll be moved at least 50 miles. As a recent report stated the Catholic hierarchies in Kansas number one goal relative to sexual abuse by priests is don’t put the church in a bad light.
Let ‘em build mansions. Keep the tax assessors busy.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)Never once have I seen a rectory that wasn't a one-story, utilitarian building. Rectories are where normal priests live. Are you sure you aren't talking about the homes of the hierarchy. bishops, archbishops, cardinals?
If you aren't, I guess Kansas is one unique state.
BOSSHOG
(44,738 posts)The parish paper set the cost at 600 thousand. It was built almost two years ago. IOW it’s probably appraised at a lot more now. IOW it’s worth at least 120,000 meals on wheels. It’s expansive one story with a full basement and at least a two car garage. I don’t know of Kansas being anymore unique then other states. I do know the church fundraises nonstop. I was born and raised Catholic. I have no use for it. Their purpose. Making money, codifying their “beliefs and maintaining their tax exempt status.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)I have never, ever seen or heard of parish priests living in anything but ordinary looking houses. We have about five Catholic churches within ten minutes of our house. (It's a big cluster.) Nothing even close to a mansion on those sites. Used to live in Michigan. Northeast. Down south. No mansions there, either. Where I live now, priests even pay for their own retirements. Have that on good authority from people who work for the diocese.
Kansas must do it differently.
BOSSHOG
(44,738 posts)My first Church, St Columba, North Philly, very large “rectory.” I don’t understand the “differently.” I dare say you and I have not seen every “rectory”. In the country, our sampling is small. A few months ago my sister in law was in town. We drove by the new “rectory.” She said you ought to see the two new ones in Topeka. Priests should pay for their own retirements. Millions of Americans do. Feed, cloth and house the poor and sick and needy. Ya know Christlike stuff. Stay the hell out of the states business or voluntarily give up your tax exempt status. Clearly defined problem, clearly defined solution, regardless of the size of your “rectory.”
shrike3
(5,370 posts)Usually former or current residences of bishops and cardinals. The Diocese of Detroit did have an actual mansion that it was eventually sold to John Salley, who played for the Detroit Pistons. It was impressive. I have never seen a rectory that I would call "a mansion." Then again, I grew up in a large house. Maybe I grew up in a mansion and didn't know it.
I am aware of plenty of instances wherein church and church officials did feed, cloth and house the poor, etc., but I won't argue with you. Your opinions and experiences are as valid as mine. I respect it. So long as you don't put your opinions in the safe haven C & O group I have no issue with what you say. Have a good evening.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)BOSSHOG
(44,738 posts)shrike3
(5,370 posts)either, because it was built with volunteer labor and donations. If people want to do that with their money. Besides, it says in the article it is being used for multiple purposes. A mission center for the needy. Meeting rooms. A school. It's not all living space.
Anyway, that's my opinion and we're all entitled to one.
BOSSHOG
(44,738 posts)I’m fully aware of the what’s and how fors of the mansion. The homeless guy who burned to death on the banks of the Kansas river trying to stay warm when the windchill was 30 below probably would have eyeballed it as a mansion as well. In 2022 the Catholic Church in Kansas spent over 4 Million trying to codify a religious belief. What constitutes the separation of church and state? Yeah priest feed,, house and cloth. Wouldn’t that be a big part of their job?
shrike3
(5,370 posts)The C&O group is DU's safe haven group for Catholics and Orthodox. It is under the Religion and Spirituality heading. DUers often post opinions there that are against safe haven rules. These rules are available in the pinned post at the top of the group. Most are very polite and apologetic when informed of this and remove their posts. There are a few who don't, but only a few. I am fine with any opinion anywhere, so long as it doesn't violate group rules.
Yes, of course it is part of the priests job to help cloth and house. If they aren't doing that in Kansas, I'm sorry. I hope that there are plenty of secular and non-Catholic groups in your area to which you can give your support and time. It feels good to help and I hope you have plenty of opportunities to do so. Again, your opinions are yours, and I respect them. Have a good rest of your evening.
BOSSHOG
(44,738 posts)You are rather smug in your two cents worth. I take advantage of every opportunity to assist my community. Meals on wheels, food bank, local hospital, blood drive volunteer. But I don’t go to church. Your smug attitude begs a Christian adjustment. You won’t find me in your safe haven. Share with me why I would want to go there. My support and time? Your “Christian” arrogance is overwhelming.
And you haven’t answered my question. What constitutes the separation of church and state?
“DUers often post opinions.” Imagine that.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)And of course you don't have to go to church. I don't know that I was smug. Maybe you're looking for hostility where there really is non.
Separation of church and state is just that. Separation, a wall between the two. Secular government. Secular public policy. It makes perfect sense given we are a polygot nation in which Christians will be a plurality soon.
I think this is the last time I will answer your posts in any sort of discussion, because we are unable to have a civil one, alas. Good luck.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)I don't trust they are safe.
What about medical history of parents availability?
Someone else indicated that a baby swiped from the real mother and then dumped off.
CTyankee
(68,152 posts)Babies were placed in a "Lazy susan" type of device to receive them, with carvings showing the proper swaddling of these babies so they would "grow straight."
You can see this wonderful place in Florence today...
Igel
(37,516 posts)Not hard to put 1+0 together to get 1.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)Kind of Indiana's thing. Good old Mike Pence got a law pass stipulating the remains of a miscarriage must be buried.
I seem to remember some system somewhere which had an alarm go off whenever a baby was placed. Since the baby is surrendered legally (someone correct me if I'm wrong) the woman may reclaim during a given window of time. Similar to adoption relinquishment.
They're not the best, but they beat exposing the baby on a hillside, which during ancient and medieval times did happen.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)
This whole thing is an interesting debate, but I think it all comes back to bodily autonomy. Until we allow women to control when and how we give birth, men will keep deciding "what must be done" when women are force to give birth against their will.
To be clear, I think the issues around how to deal with children who are orphaned for any reason is something our society does poorly, at best. And there are complicated discussions to be had. But it will be a much less fraught topic, and a much less common occurrence when women are not demonized for making their own decisions about when and how to give birth.
MontanaMama
(24,717 posts)This. Let women decide when to bring life into the world.
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)But also did not want the responsibility of the child.
Marthe48
(23,129 posts)And in spite of attempts by us mere mortals, Nature will win. With birth control, and abortion rights, we had a slim chance of an upper hand. Now, we'll have boxes into which we can dispose of unwanted born babies, that the people forcing pregnancy and birth don't give a flying f**k about.
And like people here said-there will be forced abandonment of babies, there will be DNA issues complicating adoption or health, there will come a time when a person who gave birth is punished for putting the baby in a box. I imagine that sick, retarded, or otherwise unhealthy born babies will be put in the box, because the parents can't afford proper care. And those poor babies will be unadoptable, and be miserable from birth to death. And r's don't care.
r's can't think past the end of their penis, and their short-sightedness is evident.
Warpy
(114,580 posts)because the alternative to anonymous dropoff boxes has been the trash, whether rest room trash cans or dumpsters. Sometimes the infant is found in time. Often it is not, especially in winter.
Maria needs a reality check.
If the mother, most often a child, herself, has felt pressured, she can go to the dropoff point to find out where the baby is. She can't do that with the trash, which has often been picked up before she has healed enough to find it.
Maria's heart might be in the right place, but her brain aint engaged.
obamanut2012
(29,340 posts)She is right.
Warpy
(114,580 posts)while I've had to cope with the one that actually exists.
These dropoffs aren't used very often. However, they cut down on the number of infants thrown out in the trash.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)As Warpy says, in a perfect world she would be. But this is not a perfect world.
efhmc
(16,605 posts)to a baby in the communal bathroom. From what was said at the time, she had no idea she was pregnant. I always wonder what happened to her and to that baby. With the evil laws in my state, I wonder what will happened to the forced birth mothers and to the babies they did not want and could not care for.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)Which actually went on in the old days.
Warpy
(114,580 posts)for a hell of a lot of human history.
Antiabortionists and nitwits against safe and anonymous infant surrender systems need to think long and hard about that.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)Warpy
(114,580 posts)is designed to turn out patriotic and obedient worker bees and that's it. It focuses mostly on European kings and wars and a lot of happy horseshit about America. Because they're incurious, they don't read and certainly wouldn't read history if they did.
It's what makes them such suckers for Pox News, and what causes such manufactured outrage when anyone attempts to teach a more honest version of history, especially US history, to the kiddies in high school and college.
Tom Yossarian Joad
(19,275 posts)We are fucked.
Phoenix61
(18,820 posts)shrike3
(5,370 posts)
Tree-Hugger
(3,379 posts)Oh you sweet Summer child. People in the USA don't have that right. That's part of the problem. Safety nets are constantly cut and voted into oblivion, usually by the same people screaming "right to life" and "please think of the children." For many, the choice is to raise the baby in poverty and unsafe conditions or give birth in a dumpster.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)Europe, maybe?
Response to jgo (Original post)
JudyM This message was self-deleted by its author.
BWdem4life
(2,997 posts)to let them know they have a delivery?
obamanut2012
(29,340 posts)I have long thought this literal Medieval practice is fraught with potential for abuse: women forced by abusive husbands and boyfriends to give up the baby they want, incest babies (this is why I am not really for homeschooling -- lots of abusive falls through the cracks, including incest), human trafficking victims, etc.
Bayard
(29,561 posts)Or buried in shallow graves.
Rethuglicans don't mention that in all their railing against abortion.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)shrike3
(5,370 posts)Historically, many cultures practiced abandonment of infants, often called "infant exposure." Children were left on hillsides, in the wilderness, near churches, and in other public places. If taken up by others, the children might join another family either as slaves or as free family members. Although being found by others would allow children who were abandoned to often survive, exposure is sometimes compared to infanticide—as described by Tertullian in his Apology: "it is certainly the more cruel way to kill... by exposure to cold and hunger and dogs."
Early Modern Europe saw the rise of foundling homes and increased abandonment of children to these homes. These numbers continued to rise and peaked when 5% of all births resulted in abandonment in France around 1830. The national reaction to this was to limit the resources provided by foundling homes and switch to foster homes instead such that fewer children would die within overcrowded foundling homes during infancy. As access to contraception increased and economic conditions improved in Europe towards the end of the 19th century the numbers of children being abandoned declined.
Abandonment increased towards the end of the 19th century, particularly in the United States. The largest migration of abandoned children in history took place in the United States between 1853 and 1929. Over one hundred and twenty thousand orphans (not all of whom were intentionally abandoned) were shipped west on railroad cars, where families agreed to foster the children in exchange for their use as farmhands, household workers, etc. Orphan trains were highly popular as a source of free labor. The sheer size of the displacement as well as complications and exploitation that occurred gave rise to new agencies and a series of laws that promoted adoption rather than indenture. By 1945, adoption was formulated as a legal act with consideration of the child’s best interests.
Quite an argument for access to safe and legal abortion, IMO
efhmc
(16,605 posts)Those people who actually care would put into place systems that care for both before and after birth. But that which is called socialism by them, caring by others, will never happen.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)Today, at least, there is reliable contraception. Abortion access in at least some areas. We need to hang onto the first, and work to roll back restrictions on the latter.
milestogo
(23,054 posts)
Karma13612
(4,979 posts)And drop it” Amy Coney Barrett thinks it’s a perfectly acceptable alternative to a woman’s body autonomy soooooo what exactly do they suggest we do here in Giliad 2.0????????
Other countries are leaning more towards a woman’s right to chose before it gets this far.
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)If this is the outcome she chose, so be it. Abortion should be an option, but it shouldn't be the only option other than parenting the child.