Mom who left baby at ER won't be charged

[JayS]

June 8, 2004, 9:17AM
Mom who left baby at ER won't be charged
By MELANIE MARKLEY
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2614859



A newborn was abandoned early Sunday at a southeast Houston hospital after the mother walked out of the emergency room saying she had to move her car and never returned.

Police say the woman identified herself as Stephanie Smith, 23, but authorities have yet to determine whether that is her real name. The infant girl, who is being called Baby Smith, is in good condition at Memorial Hermann Southeast Hospital.

Police spokesman John Cannon said the woman will not face criminal charges because she is protected by the Baby Moses Law, which offers parents immunity from prosecution if they leave their unwanted babies at hospitals or fire stations.

*SNIP*

In 2003, two Brazoria County babies were left at fire stations, prompting officials to say that the Baby Moses Law approved by the Legislature in 1999 was apparently saving lives. The law was enacted during a time when a large number of babies were being abandoned in ditches, fields and trash bins in the Houston area.

[Scooter24]

1. Baby Moses Law?

So this is the GOP's answer to abortion? A program where we allow babies to just be dumped at hospitals and fire stations at will?

[seabeyond]

2. in our screwed up society

and having had two babies, fully supported adn taken care of by family allowing me to take care of babies alone...........

this is to allow a female the option of saying i cant do this, with out hurting or killing a baby. if we take all options away from people in this situatuion, then the most horrible will happen. there needs to be the place a female can take a baby and safely hand over and in responsibility say, i cannot do this, giving the baby a chance at life

it is a good thing, i strongly support it and all mothers that find they cannot do it, i suggest please, allow the baby a chance

that is what this is

[Malva Zebrina]

11. and instead of being able to live a normal life

this woman, out of guilt for her sexuality, was forced by some reason, religious most likely, to put herself at risk, and to suffer shame. It is NOT her that is important here, obviously--it is not important that for some reason she felt she HAD to carry a baby that she could not care for and that would be foisted upon society to pay for--

Every pregnancy is a risk. Women should not have to be forced to deliver a baby they do not want and cannot care for.

[seabeyond]

21. abortion is available and we dont know anything about this woman

so to make these assumptions. there are women that have babies and dont have the nurturing to be mothers or once in and seeing all the work and tiredness doesnt want to do it. look at our world. i am not willing to give this woman the out that society pressured her to make her choices, i dont take anyones power away from them like that. we are all our own creators. this woman is solely responsible for her creation.

i would have to hear a lot more from this woman to make such statements

[Djinn]

89. agree

this happens in Australia not irregularly as well - we have legal available abortion.

Often it's a case of young or poor mothers who after giving birth realise it's giong to be harder than they thought.

I doubt lack of abortion services had anything to do with it

[outinforce]

35. Yes.

Let's abort babies so that they are not "foisted" upon society to pay for.

It sounds very strange to hear someone who is pro-choice articulating a position that comes pretty close to saying that we should not try to fix the social support system so that children who are born don't have to live in poverty.

I don't care why a child is poor. My concern is that we, as a society, should care for each and every child who is born and who needs our help.

I would NEVER say that a child who comes into the social support system we have established is "foisted". I consider that, or at least I USED to consider that, to be the language of the most conservative elements of our society.

[sangh0]

111. Babies aren't aborted

Fetuses are.

[ILREP.]

133. f

[noonwitch]

22. It beats finding dead babies in dumpsters

That's why they passed these laws in many states, including Michigan.
It's still better for a pregnant woman who wants to give her child up to consult with an adoption agency before giving birth. That way, she can provide the agency with medical information and the agency may assist her in obtaining prenatal care and in counseling her through the process of giving her child up, which can never be an easy thing.

[Francis]

3. I support this law

100%
It recognises that this is not now, and never will be an ideal world but does give mothers who are too scared to say that they have had a child can ensure the child's welfare without having to give their name
I don't know how may newborns have been saved from dumpsters but it will have been worth it for one

edited for typos

[JayS]

9. Quite a few have been saved.

http://library.adoption.com/Laws-Legal-Issues/The-Wall-Street-Journals-Al-Hunt-Strikes-Out-on-Safe-Haven-Laws/article/5231/1.html

After 38 years with The Wall Street Journal and despite serving as Executive Washington editor for that paper, not to mention his prominence as a regular on CNN's "The Capital Gang," it is to be expected that Al Hunt will strike out once in a while strictly on the basis of not reporting the facts. (There's no point in trying to assess Hunt's score on ideology, given the fact that he's the resident "liberal" of a paper with a consistently "conservative" philosophy.)

Sadly, Hunt goofed in an area - children's issues and adoption - where he's got a deep and abiding personal interest, he's an adoptive parent and is supportive of adoption. Hunt has often hit homers. Most notably, Hunt was on former President Clinton's back about having a Department of Health and Human Services that tolerated race-based placement policies for children receiving federal funds. And Hunt was supportive of foster care reforms undertaken by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Hunt's folly came in an Aug. 21, 2003, "Politics & People" column in The Wall Street Journal entitled "No Safe Haven." "Safe Haven" refers to those laws, sometimes also called "Baby Moses" laws which allow women, or someone they give their babies to, to have an option other than unsafely abandoning their newborns - or killing them. The essence of the laws is that women can anonymously put their children in the arms of someone at a Safe Haven, or leave their babies at a Safe Haven site - usually a hospital or fire station - without fear of being prosecuted for child abandonment. The first such bill, in Texas, was signed into law on June 3, 1999 by then-Governor George W. Bush. Since then, 44 other states have passed various versions of the Texas law.

Maybe Hunt's problem has something to do with the fact that President Bush and Texas Republican Geanie Morrison, a GOP State Representative from Victoria, were godparents of the movement to pass these laws. Whatever the reasons, Hunt decided to write a column Aug. 21 about a "pocket veto" of a law nearly unanimously passed by the Hawaii legislature months ago. What prompted Hunt to drag this dead bill out and prop it up is unknown. There's certainly little debate at present in any of the remaining state legislatures about such bills.

*SNIP*

Hay's counterpart at the state level in Austin, Geoff Wool, Director of Public Information for TDPRS, says his Department does not attempt to collect data on or report on Baby Moses relinquishments. What is available are data for all babies that fall within the age range of the Baby Moses law, including babies presumably like those saved in Houston in 2002, and who are found alive. And those numbers do not show the law to be a "failure" unless declining abandonments is equated with "failure." Abandonments, even after Rep. Morrison expanded the law in 2001 to babies 31-60 days of age, went down every year. In 2000, the first full year after the law passed, there were 54 live babies abandoned in Texas. In 2001, with an expanded pool of babies, it was 43 babies. In 2002, it was 38 babies. A near one-third drop in abandonments from 2000 to 2002 hardly seems like a failure.

*SNIP*

[Malva Zebrina]

12. a four, or eight or sixteen celled blob is NOT a child

she could have had an abortion on the blobs of cells--instead she is being praised for putting herself at risk,out of guilt, and causing society to look after a baby she did not want.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ret5hd]

18. and thus speaks the anti-choice wing

[outinforce]

20. ????

What are you talking about?

The poster I was replying to was pretty clear that she thought that abortion should have been chosen instead of birth.

THat sound pretty pro-abortion to me.

Why would you think that by pointiong that out, I am in any way "anti-choice"??

Do you mean that unless someone is pro-abortion, s/he is anti-choice?

[ret5hd]

26. no, but it seems that you think...

that unless someone is anti-choice, they are pro-abortion

[outinforce]

29. I Have No Clue

as to what, exactly, you mean by anti-choice.

I will tell you that my notion of someone who is pro-abortion is not the same thing as someone who is pro-choice.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[outinforce]

40. You Got A Problem

with gay men? Is it because I am gay that you have chosen to fling your diatribe my way?

Or is it because I am male?

And just so you know -- I have absolutely NO desire -- NONE -- to force women to become incubators.

Talk about homophobia.

[Cheswick2.0]

42. I have a problem with gay men who think every gay embryo

is more important than a womans right to control her own body.

[outinforce]

44. "Every gay Embryo"?

WHat in the world does that mean?

Has medical science developed a means for determining which embyros will become gay and which will not?

[Cheswick2.0]

46. oh come on, you have admited many times

that you belong to that organization(what is the name?) which is preemptively fighting abortion rights because they are sure that science will find the "gay gene" and women will abort gay embryos and fetuses.
Yup, those little gay gened feti will be so much better being carried to delivery by women who hate them for having the "gay gene".

[outinforce]

49. HAHAHAHA!

I have admitted?

Many times?

That I belong to an organization?

That pre-emptively (whatever that means) fights abortion rights?

Because they are sure that science will find some "gay gene"?

That is sooooooo funny!

Thanks for the laugh.

I haven't had a laugh like that since someone accused me of having "extreme uterus envy"!

[Cheswick2.0]

50. good argument

:eyes:

[outinforce]

53. Glad You Liked It

I find that sort of argument better than making up things about folks.

Others, however, appear to think that good argument consist of fabricating things that others did not say.

Oh, well.

So it goes.

[Djinn]

90. don't nkow if you're a fan of that crackpot group outinforce

but for those of us who've wallowed in the abortion threads your views are pretty well known. And if they ARE pro-choice you've got an odd way of enunciating that

[outinforce]

93. "Wallowed"

I belong to no crackpot group. And, judging from the many times different people here have incorrectly stated my views, I would take issue with your statement that my views are "pretty well known".

And whatever do you mean by "wallowed in the abortion threads"? What an word to use.

[sangh0]

112. Yes, "wallowed"

It's a term people use to connote distaste (sort of like "wallowing in the mud") for what goes on in those threads, with many thanks to you for that.

So, do you still think that abortion is "wonderful"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1700342#1700903

[outinforce]

121. Did You Know That

there is someone else posting here on DU who goes by the posting name "sangha"???

She thinks that she and I have had the discussion that you and I have had.

Isn't that odd?

[outinforce]

152. And With Equal Thanks

I think you are being far too modest here, sangh0/sangha.

You only give thanks to me for people feeling that they are wallowing in certain types of threads.

I do think that you deserve much of the credit for people having a distaste that comes from wallowing.

You certainly deserve far more credit for it than I do.

[Djinn]

115. it's quite appropriate

I find the abortion threads a bit nasty and wallowing is what it feels like - want to explain what's wrong with that usage??

Your constant asrcasm in these posts about how abortion should be discouraged (sorry "reduced") leaves me a little suspiscious of your motives, you're often quite criptic and do not state with any conviction that you are pro-choice - ie you say you are but then go on to contradict that with sarcasm and snarky references to "feet and toes" - see thread posted by sangh0.

[Forkboy]

118. They are "pretty well known"

and pretty damn silly.

[outinforce]

122. Thanks for Your

insight.

I'll keep it in mind.

[Beatrix]

33. dupe

delete

[Beatrix]

34. You know

I find a person calling for another to get an abortion rather than deliver if she so CHOOSES just as repugnant as an anti-CHOICE person forbidding abortion.

So now if a person wants to give birth and society will have to look after the baby, she SHOULD get an abortion instead? Or be attacked by you for not doing so? So I suppose while it's not ok for the republicans to tell others not to have an abortion, it's ok for YOU to TELL others what to do with THEIR body? Hypocrisy lives on.

[outinforce]

41. It Seems To Me

that you are articulating a pro-abortion position quite well.

[Hammie]

109. You are uninformed

An human embryo is eight cells only a few days after conception. A woman wouldn't even know that she was pregnant at that point. By the time she would know she was pregnant, the embryo would already be implanted and have a heartbeat. Certainly if she knew at that point that she didn't want a baby she could have the pregnancy aborted, but it is not an undifferentiated blob of cells, it is a partially developed human.

You also know nothing at all about the woman who abandoned the baby. The only thing anyone, except the woman herself, knows is that she abandoned her baby at a hospital. You don't know her circumstance or her reasons. Considering where most abandoned babies are left, she was relatively responsible.

You also are apparently unaware that there are so many people that want to have babies of their own and can't that they spend enormous amounts of money to adopt babies from other countries. The most likely outcome for this baby is that it will be adopted by some loving couple who will raise it and care for it as if it were their own genetic offspring.

In spite of all this ignorance, you manage to conclude that she didn't abort the 16 cell blob because she felt guilty.


Amazing!

[truthspeaker]

32. me too. As was said above, beats finding babies in dumpsters

We have a similar law in Minnesota.

[redqueen]

5. What, you think they'd choose to address poverty?

You can't honestly think that they'd rather take on such matters as a living wage, affordable childcare, affordable healthcare, and all the other issues which contribute to mothers abandoning their babies.

Much MUCH easier to just say to mothers that they can dump the babies and not have to worry about being bothered about doing so.

:(

[eyesroll]

6. Better than getting dumped in a trash can

which is what these laws try to prevent.

Babies get abandoned whether abortion is legal or not; this way, at least, there's a safe place to do so.

[Malva Zebrina]

15. for these women it is not a question of legality, it is a question of

guilt for their sexuality. Most of the time it is religious in nature.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mandate My Ass]

24. HAHAHAHA

:7

[slinkerwink]

25. hehe

;-)

[outinforce]

38. What?

Was it something I said that caused this outburst of laughter?

[slinkerwink]

47. of course.....

:evilgrin:

[outinforce]

51. I Can't Imagine What

I, for the life of me, just can't imagine what I would have said that would have been so amusing to you.

Oh, well, someone must have found my comments not to have been so funny.

That's life.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[outinforce]

58. Please Do

Please do show me where it is, exactly, that I have elevated that status of the fetus on a higher lever than that of the mother.

You sya that I demonstrate "misogynistic ignorance".

I would suggest that you demonsrated simple ignorance.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[outinforce]

63. So, In Order Not

to be "misogynisticly ignorant", someone needs to be FOR abortion?

I had not realized that.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[slinkerwink]

67. being for abortion is a part of supporting women's reproductive rights

and being against that is simply being misogynistic in denying women the right to have access to abortion.

[outinforce]

70. No.

Wrong.

Being for CHOICE -- NOT abortion -- is part of supporting women's reproductive rights.

Being against CHOICE -- which is not the same thing as being against abortion -- is being misogynistic.

There is another posted in this thread who would lay guil;t upon women who do not choose to have abortions.

She is, no dou;bt, very much for abortions.

But she is also anti-choice, in my book.

It is about CHOICE. ANd a person can be pro-CHOICE without being pro-abortion.

[Malva Zebrina]

36. Excuse me?

Message deleted by myself. It is obvious here what has happened and why.

[ScreamingMeemie]

52. I'd rather a baby be dumped at a hospital than dumped in a dumpster.

It's a good law and I support it. Think of the teenagers who's parents would never understand...the ones forced (in their young minds) to murder an innocent baby and shove it into a toilet.

[LeahMira]

99. This isn't a "GOP law"

The first legalized infant abandonment law was passed in Texas during the Clinton administration, after a large number of infants had been found abandoned within a short period of time. I forget the exact figures, but it was something like sixteen in one city within a period of three months... something like that. Anyhow, lawmakers felt that if women had a designated safe place where they could leave their infants, no questions asked, they would do that.

Following the Texas example, dozens of other states jumped on the legalized infant abandonment bandwagon, enacting their own laws, designating their own safe places, and setting up procedures for eventually placing these abandoned infants for adoption.

Adoptee rights organizations pointed out that these laws not only flew in the face of decades of efforts to deter infant abandonment by providing serious penalties for women found doing this, but also the infants who were abandoned had no way of even finding out what there personal heritage was, including, but not limited to family medical history. (The popularity of such websites as ancestry.com indicates the importance of heritage to many people.)

Project Cuddle, a group based in California, also objected to these laws. Project Cuddle has found that women who abandon their infants in dumpsters and other unsafe places are dealing with a specific mental condition which causes them to deny not only their pregnancy, but also the fact of delivery. Somehow, they manage to block out what is going on in their lives... there are websites that explain it more clearly, if anyone is interested. Anyhow, Project Cuddle's contention was that women suffering from this mental condition were not the population who would be able to take advantage of the safe places because of the specific mental condition itself. In addition, the Project Cuddle people had developed an intervention that sort of bypassed these specific mental problems, and at the time was celebrating the rescue and rehabilitation of over 150 women and their infants who otherwise would have been abandoned in the year or so of their efforts.

After the Texas law had gone into effect, there was no decline in infant abandonments. Matter of fact, I think that for a while they actually increased.

Nonetheless, last time I paid attention, over half the states had passed legalized abandonment laws. Of course Delaware (my state) was one of the ones that did so especially since we had just had the Amy Grossberg infant abandonment incident that made national news.

To the best of my knowledge, these laws have not saved any babies' lives. None have been turned in to the safe drop-off places. Hospitals have always had some infants who are abandoned by their mothers (boarder babies). Often these are infants delivered by addicted mothers, and either the mothers are not thinking too clearly or they see that their infants are terribly disabled and they know that they aren't in any position to take care of them.

Bastard Nation, an adoptee rights organization, has some information on their website at: www.bastards.org

There's also information about Project Cuddle on their website.

Google "infant abandonment" and you can probably find more information about the specific mental condition that causes women to leave their infants off in unsafe places. That's where I found info, but it was a while ago that I was looking. Some mental health or psychologically oriented sites may have more info.

Although Bush was, at the time, Governor of Texas, the "safe infant" laws were passed in states with legislatures dominated by either one or the other of both parties.

IMO, it would do us all better to support folks like Project Cuddle, who can actually prevent women from abandoning their infants. That way, we are saving both the mother and the infant. Again, as a society, we don't need to choose one or the other. We can save both. But, in this climate we have in the U.S., women who aren't "perfect moms" are demonized and the attitude is to punish them rather than to help them get through a rough time in their lives.

And then, there's always the simple fact that the "baby dump" laws just don't work.

[LeahMira]

100. This isn't a "GOP law"

The first legalized infant abandonment law was passed in Texas during the Clinton administration, after a large number of infants had been found abandoned within a short period of time. I forget the exact figures, but it was something like sixteen in one city within a period of three months... something like that. Anyhow, lawmakers felt that if women had a designated safe place where they could leave their infants, no questions asked, they would do that.

Following the Texas example, dozens of other states jumped on the legalized infant abandonment bandwagon, enacting their own laws, designating their own safe places, and setting up procedures for eventually placing these abandoned infants for adoption.

Adoptee rights organizations pointed out that these laws not only flew in the face of decades of efforts to deter infant abandonment by providing serious penalties for women found doing this, but also the infants who were abandoned had no way of even finding out what their personal heritage was, including, but not limited to family medical history. (The popularity of such websites as ancestry.com indicates the importance of heritage to many people.)

Project Cuddle, a group based in California, also objected to these laws. Project Cuddle has found that women who abandon their infants in dumpsters and other unsafe places are dealing with a specific mental condition which causes them to deny not only their pregnancy, but also the fact of delivery. Somehow, they manage to block out what is going on in their lives... there are websites that explain it more clearly, if anyone is interested. Anyhow, Project Cuddle's contention was that women suffering from this mental condition were not the population who would be able to take advantage of the safe places because of the specific mental condition itself. In addition, the Project Cuddle people had developed an intervention that sort of bypassed these specific mental problems, and at the time was celebrating the rescue and rehabilitation of over 150 women and their infants who otherwise would have been abandoned in the year or so of their efforts.

After the Texas law had gone into effect, there was no decline in infant abandonments. Matter of fact, I think that for a while they actually increased.

Nonetheless, last time I paid attention, over half the states had passed legalized abandonment laws. Of course Delaware (my state) was one of the ones that did so especially since we had just had the Amy Grossberg infant abandonment incident that made national news.

To the best of my knowledge, these laws have not saved any babies' lives. None have been turned in to the safe drop-off places. Hospitals have always had some infants who are abandoned by their mothers (boarder babies). Often these are infants delivered by addicted mothers, and either the mothers are not thinking too clearly or they see that their infants are terribly disabled and they know that they aren't in any position to take care of them.

Bastard Nation, an adoptee rights organization, has some information on their website at: www.bastards.org

There's also information about Project Cuddle on their website.

Google "infant abandonment" and you can probably find more information about the specific mental condition that causes women to leave their infants off in unsafe places. That's where I found info, but it was a while ago that I was looking. Some mental health or psychologically oriented sites may have more info.

Although Bush was, at the time, Governor of Texas, the "safe infant" laws were passed in states with legislatures dominated by either one or the other of both parties.

IMO, it would do us all better to support folks like Project Cuddle, who can actually prevent women from abandoning their infants. That way, we are saving both the mother and the infant. Again, as a society, we don't need to choose one or the other. We can save both. But, in this climate we have in the U.S., women who aren't "perfect moms" are demonized and the attitude is to punish them rather than to help them get through a rough time in their lives.

Still, there's always the simple fact that the "baby dump" laws just don't work.

[JayS]

103. It is as GOP as you can get and has worked miracles.

There is something about finding a baby that is being eaten alive (literally) by fireants that garners support for this bill no matter who created it. Clinton had nothing to do with it at all, especially as his interest would not have been particularly welcome.


*******************
http://www.babymoses.org/faq.htm

How did Texas end up passing a law to deal with abandonment and the resulting infanticide of babies?
The law is the result of the efforts of Texas State Representative Geanie W. Morrison, a Republican from District 30, in Victoria. The initial impetus came from Dr. John Richardson, of Cook Children's Hospital in Fort Worth, who read about the idea of providing safe shelter for babies of mothers in crisis in National Adoption Reports, the newsletter of the National Council For Adoption. Dr. Richardson enlisted the assistance of his niece, an Austin judge, who decided, acting as a private citizen, to seek out a state legislator who would take up the cause of abandoned babies. Rep. Morrison shepherded the bill through the legislature as the prime sponsor.10 Among those publicly endorsing the Morrison legislation in addition to Dr. John Richardson and Judge Deborah Richardson were: Children's Medical Center, Dallas; Christus Santa Rosa Children's Hospital, San Antonio; Cook Children's Health Care System, Fort Worth; Tarrant County Hospital District, Fort Worth; Texas Hospital Association; Texas Pediatric Association. Gov. George W. Bush, who was supportive of Rep. Morrison's bill, signed Safe Haven Legislation on June 2, 1999. The law became effective on September 1, 1999.11









http://library.adoption.com/Laws-Legal-Issues/The-Wall-Street-Journals...

After 38 years with The Wall Street Journal and despite serving as Executive Washington editor for that paper, not to mention his prominence as a regular on CNN's "The Capital Gang," it is to be expected that Al Hunt will strike out once in a while strictly on the basis of not reporting the facts. (There's no point in trying to assess Hunt's score on ideology, given the fact that he's the resident "liberal" of a paper with a consistently "conservative" philosophy.)

Sadly, Hunt goofed in an area - children's issues and adoption - where he's got a deep and abiding personal interest, he's an adoptive parent and is supportive of adoption. Hunt has often hit homers. Most notably, Hunt was on former President Clinton's back about having a Department of Health and Human Services that tolerated race-based placement policies for children receiving federal funds. And Hunt was supportive of foster care reforms undertaken by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Hunt's folly came in an Aug. 21, 2003, "Politics & People" column in The Wall Street Journal entitled "No Safe Haven." "Safe Haven" refers to those laws, sometimes also called "Baby Moses" laws which allow women, or someone they give their babies to, to have an option other than unsafely abandoning their newborns - or killing them. The essence of the laws is that women can anonymously put their children in the arms of someone at a Safe Haven, or leave their babies at a Safe Haven site - usually a hospital or fire station - without fear of being prosecuted for child abandonment. The first such bill, in Texas, was signed into law on June 3, 1999 by then-Governor George W. Bush. Since then, 44 other states have passed various versions of the Texas law.

Maybe Hunt's problem has something to do with the fact that President Bush and Texas Republican Geanie Morrison, a GOP State Representative from Victoria, were godparents of the movement to pass these laws. Whatever the reasons, Hunt decided to write a column Aug. 21 about a "pocket veto" of a law nearly unanimously passed by the Hawaii legislature months ago. What prompted Hunt to drag this dead bill out and prop it up is unknown. There's certainly little debate at present in any of the remaining state legislatures about such bills.

*SNIP*

Hay's counterpart at the state level in Austin, Geoff Wool, Director of Public Information for TDPRS, says his Department does not attempt to collect data on or report on Baby Moses relinquishments. What is available are data for all babies that fall within the age range of the Baby Moses law, including babies presumably like those saved in Houston in 2002, and who are found alive. And those numbers do not show the law to be a "failure" unless declining abandonments is equated with "failure." Abandonments, even after Rep. Morrison expanded the law in 2001 to babies 31-60 days of age, went down every year. In 2000, the first full year after the law passed, there were 54 live babies abandoned in Texas. In 2001, with an expanded pool of babies, it was 43 babies. In 2002, it was 38 babies. A near one-third drop in abandonments from 2000 to 2002 hardly seems like a failure.

*SNIP*

[bmbmd]

4. Baby Moses

seems like a great idea to me. Many, many mothers take their babies home from the hospital, flush with emotion and love for their new babies, only to find that they are emotionally, physically, and financially unable to care for their babies. Turning these kids into a trusted caretaker is the best option. Can you think of a better idea?

[LeahMira]

102. Absolutely!

Turning these kids into a trusted caretaker is the best option. Can you think of a better idea?

Try helping the mothers with whatever it is that they need. The overwhelming majority will be able to stand on their own feet with their infants in less than a year.

These days, adoption agencies are required by law to inform young women of the welfare and other options available to them if they choose to keep their infants and raise them themselves. The director of one local agency that I spoke with said that 99% of the young women that agency sees about possible adoption choose to keep their infants, once they are told of the options available to them.

I suppose it's tempting for those folks who are not involved as either adoptees or birthparents to imagine that women who place their infants for adoption are somehow different from the "normal" woman. After all, how on earth could any of us who have children even think of giving one away.

Still, the facts are otherwise. Relinquishing a child is the most heartwrenching thing any woman ever does. Even women who are addicted, who are prostitutes, or who are otherwise lost, do not walk away from their infants without a care. Anyone who's even seen "Losing Isaiah" will understand that even when all seems well on the surface, there is a terrible guilt and shame involved that can, and does, ruin lives.

We can save both mother's and infant's lives. All that's missing is the will to do it.

[JayS]

104. "do not walk away from their infants without a care"

The ones who leave them in dumpsters obviously do, unless they are convinced that the local landfill has the latest in neonatal care.

[JayS]

114. kick

[Cheswick2.0]

7. Good

It is much better than having those poor women dump their kids in the trash.

[Malva Zebrina]

39. their kids?

Is there not a father involved also? Where is he?

[outinforce]

45. A Father?

Why in the world should he have any say? What gives him any right in determining what the woman chooses to do?

[Fear]

8. they don't need a law, they need help, and where's the help?

[Kanary]

10. They need the law AND the help

BOTH are necessary.

We can think in terms of BOTH/AND, rather than EITHER/OR.

Kanary

[redqueen]

13. Well, some of us can, anyway.

Not nearly enough, obviously.

[Fear]

17. yeah you're right......more trying to make a point ;), but thanks! - true

[Kanary]

66. I know what it's like to be trying to write fast

Done that a few times me-own-self. :)

Thanks for understanding. :hi:

Kanary

[Malva Zebrina]

16. any woman with common sense unhindered buy ancient religious laws against

women's sexuality, and who knows she does not want a baby, and cannot care for a baby, will seek abortion for the good of herself and others who may be invovled.

Women who do not have such confidence, will put themsleves at risk for a pregnancy, and then hand off the child they perhaps cannot cope with, to society.

Few little black kids are adopted. I am not sure of the statistics, but I did hear that the little cute white kids, or mocha colored kids get adopted first.

[outinforce]

27. You Got A Problem With...

Do you have a problem with a society that wishes to care for children?

You have posted comments that suggest that any woman with common sense would have an abortion if she knew (while she was pregnant) that she did not want to have a baby.

You also seem to say that it is just not quite right for a woman to have a baby and then to "hand off the child they perhaps cannot cope with to society".

WHat, exactly, is wrong with a woman deciding that she cannot cope with the demands of parenthood and choosing to "hand off" her child to society?

Are you suggesting that she is being "unfair" to society? That she is burdening the rest of us with the consequences of not having had an abortion?

My, my, my.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard or seen the comment that pro-life folks only care about fetuses while they are fetuses. How pro-life folks don't think that "society" should be burdened with the consequences of women have children.

It sound rather strange coming from someone who appears to be pro-choice.

[Malva Zebrina]

43. Absolutely

You have posted comments that suggest that any woman with common sense would have an abortion if she knew (while she was pregnant) that she did not want to have a baby.

absolutely--it is the best thing to do for all concerned, especially for the health of the woman.

and it is NOT illegal, It is a perfectly reasonable and sane way to handle one's life, expecially if the woman has other children.

NOw, for a society that wishes to care for children. Excuse me?

we have women donating babies to society and you are telling me we have a society that wishes to care for children? Are not these donators of u nwanted children, part of society. We have babies NOT being adopted because they are black and we do not see any sort of great church goers volunteering to adopt each and every baby that is abandoned and it is a burden on the taxpayers to have women donate their babies to an orphanage when they could have aborted these safely and in a safe and clean environment, with regard to their own health and well being, while the blob was a mass of cells and nothing more.

To say a blob or a mass of cells is anything more than that, is forcing a woman to pregnancy, expecially if a "soul" is mentioned, conjuring up all sorts of guilt and visions of PUNISHMENT if she does not put herself at risk, and sacrifice her own life for the sake of donating this baby to others once she rids herself of it.

[outinforce]

48. WOW.

I would never ever never ever say that I could just what is "the best thing" for a woman to do, or what the best thing for her health is.

You, however, do no seem to have that problem.

You say, with certainty, that abortion "it is the best thing to do for all concerned, especially for the health of the woman."

I guess those women who choose not to have abortions are just being cavalier with their health. I'm certainly glad my own mother just tossed concerns about "the best thing' for her health to the wind when she was pregnant with me.

And it owuld seem to me that if, as you say, "We have babies NOT being adopted because they are black', tha it is not just "great church goers" who are not volunteering to adopt those black babies. Folks who have never set foot inside a church, synagogue, or mosque must also not be volunteering to adopt those kids.

I have not mentioned, in this thread, any thing about a blob or mass of cells being anything more than just that. And I have not mentioned in this thread anything about a soul.

I have suggested that the notion of saying that a woman should elect an abortion -- instead of simply saying that abortion should be a legal CHOICE for each woman who becomes pregnant - is a rather pro-abortion position to take.

I would say further that attempting to lay guilt upon women who do not have abortions, but who choose instead to give birth and then who choose, for whatever reason, not to raise their child but instead give it over to a welfare agency supported by tax dollars, is really not to much different from those who attempt to induce guilt in women who do have abortions.

[Malva Zebrina]

59. there is no such thing as "pro-abortion"

my mother was wonderful also



I would say further that attempting to lay guilt upon women who do not have abortions, but who choose instead to give birth and then who choose, for whatever reason, not to raise their child but instead give it over to a welfare agency supported by tax dollars, is really not to much different from those who attempt to induce guilt in women who do have abortions.

No one is laying guilt on them and they who are doing so out of religious reasons, themselves are absolving themselves from guilt by carrying to term an unwanted baby, Yes?

=-but they are being irresponsible and selfish, many for religious reasons re their own position with the god, if they expect the rest of society to raise and to pay for the raising of their baby, in circumstances in which they do not participate, contribute to or even care about.

[outinforce]

64. Yes There Is

and you have done a rather good job of articulating it in this thread.

Yet another poster here has just mentioned to me, I think, that in order not to be misogynisticly ignorant, a person needs to be for abortion -- pro-abortion.

[Malva Zebrina]

71. No,

What I am articulating is my opinion about women who foist their unwanted babies upon society, rather than care for them themself. We do not need to accept or enable them in their selfishness when they have other choices many of which are readily available.

I do not automatically accept the propriety in that I am expected to take care of the baby they chose to have and then handed over to society to care for/ Any woman who does not avail herself of birth control methods in this day and age, and who carries to term a baby she cannot ever hope to care for by herself, is not responsible to society. She is only caring for and about herself,and most of the times this is a religious consideration. She will go on her way, footloose and fancy free, leaving the paying to us. She may even do it again, so easy was it to abandon that baby.

What you are saying is that women should be able to hand over to society any baby they choose to have,no matter how many times, because they failed to take care of their own lives or have any responsibility to that baby and this was, most of the time, done out of the religious considerations of the mother, if you can call her that. And what you are saying is that it is our responsibility to do so and not educate these women as to the availability of abortion as an alternative to handing over, willy nilly, newborn babies to society.

Right--it is better to go through a forced pregnancy with all of it's risks, and hand the newborn baby over to society than to consider alternatives such as abortion or even birth control

I think it irresponsible, lazy and rather stupid in this day and age.

[JayS]

80. "irresponsible, lazy and rather stupid"

Yes, but I don't know what we can legally do about it. There is one woman in Austin that has gotten quite famous for her seven children, all by different fathers, that she has no ability of any sort to raise and does not seem to care for birth control or abortion, only drugs. The raising of the children, and the care for their health problems, is all born by the taxpayers.

[outinforce]

81. "What I Am Saying"

"What you are saying is that women should be able to hand over to society any baby they choose to have,no matter how many times, because they failed to take care of their own lives or have any responsibility to that baby and this was, most of the time, done out of the religious considerations of the mother, if you can call her that. And what you are saying is that it is our responsibility to do so and not educate these women as to the availability of abortion as an alternative to handing over, willy nilly, newborn babies to society."

What I am saying is that I favor CHOICE.

Even the choice to have a child.

Even the choice for a woman to choose to have a child "no matter how many times".

You know --reproductive rights. That kind of stuff.

And even if their decision to have a child was based upon religious considerations.

Or even if it was based upom something else.

CHOICE.

Even if they have been educated as to the availability of abortion as an alternative.

And even if they want to hand over "willy nilly", newborn babies to society.

And even if they are irresponsible, lazy and rather stupid.

Women still should have the right to choose to have a baby.

It is THEIR CHOICE.

And no one should make them feel guilty about they choice they opt for.

[Djinn]

91. but suerly when you state that you're not pro-abortion

then you're doing just that.

"And no one should make them feel guilty about they choice they opt for."

why would you specify that you're not "pro-abortion" unless you thought it was a bad thing?

[outinforce]

94. Surely I Do Not

I have said that I am not pro-abortion. But that does not mean that I have any desire to make a person who has an abortion feel guilty about it.

You ask "why would you specify that you're not "pro-abortion" unless you thought it was a bad thing?". WOuld you also ask someone who describes her/himself as being "pro-abortion" if that means that they think that having birth is a bad thing?

For me, not being pro-abortion does not mean that I am against all abortions. It means, rather, that I think abortions should be rare -- a view, I think, consistent with what most Americans believe.

Many (in fact, I might be inclined to say most) people who describe themselves as being pro-choice take offense at people who assume that because they are pro-choice, they are also pro-abortion. THere is something about a pro-abortion (as opposed to a pro-choice) positikon that just doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

I have used this analogy elsewhere, but let me use it once again. I am very much pro-choice when it comes to the issue of whether adults should be able to purchase and consume tobacco products. I wouid not be in favor of a total ban on the sale and consumption of tobacco. I believe that every adult should be able to decide for her/himseflwhether or not to purchase and consume tobacco products.

But I am still anti-smoking. I think smoking should be rare. I am in favor, for instance, of ad campaigns that educate people on how to stop smoking. I do not, by the way, think that guilt is a particularly effective means to convince people to stop smoking, so I would never try to make a smoker feel guilty about her/his behavior.

[sangh0]

113. You're not "pro-abortion"? Then why did you say abortions are "wonderful"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1700342#1700903

[outinforce]

124. Were You Aware That?

Were you aware that there is someone who posts here on DU under the screen name "sangha"?

She thinks that she and I have conversed about you.

Of course, she is quite wrong.

The only person I have conversed about you with -- is you.

Isn't it odd that there would be another poster (and one with a name so similar to your own) that would have that confusion?

[sangh0]

125. You're not "pro-abortion"? Then why did you say abortions are "wonderful"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a...


It's probably just an oversight, but I noticed you didn't answer the question

Isn't it odd that there would be another poster (and one with a name so similar to your own) that would have that confusion?

We're the same person, but you already knew that

[outinforce]

127. delete -- DUPE

[outinforce]

128. You ARE?

The same person???

With two different DU accounts -- under two different posting names?

I would have thought that you were being sarcastic, but I see that you have a problem detecting sarcasm when you see it.

[outinforce]

129. You ARE?

The same person???

With two different DU accounts -- under two different posting names?

I would have thought that you were being sarcastic, but I see that you have a problem detecting sarcasm when you see it.

[sangh0]

130. You're not "pro-abortion"? Then why did you say abortions are "wonderful"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a ...


It's probably just an oversight, but I noticed you didn't answer the question

[outinforce]

132. It's Most Likely An Oversight

but I guess you are unable to recognize sarcasm when you see it.

Pity, that.

[sangh0]

136. So you weren't being honest?

You used an argument even though you didn't really believe it? And why didn't you claim sarcasm in the thread, when people objected to the way you described abortion as a "wonderful" thing? In fact, when challenged, you defended your claim that abortions were "wonderful"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1700342#1701587

[outinforce]

139. Honestly.

Please do not lay the "you weren't being honest" schtick on me, sangha/sangh0.

You were the one who concealed your identity from me.

Dismount from your high-horse there.

I guess that you are not only unable to recognize sarcasm, but also unable to fathom its nature.

Pity, that.

[sangh0]

142. You defended your claim that abortions were wonderful

which is an awfully odd thing to do for someone who was being sarcastic. Funny how in this thread, you are quick to call it sarcasm, while you showed no such enthusiasm in the thread you originally posted that in.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[outinforce]

149. I guess that

you were just not able to see the sarcasm throughout the other thread.

Must have been my fault, I guess.

[ieoeja]

73. Sure there is.

Saying a woman should have the right to an abortion under these circumstances is pro-choice.

Saying a woman should have an abortion under these circumstances is pro-abortion.


Frankly, I agree with you. I think a woman should have an abortion under these circumstances. However, I believe she should have the right to give birth and give the child up for adoption if she prefers. So my position is both pro-abortion and pro-choice.

I don't feel the least bit guilty saying "choose abortion".

[outinforce]

82. Would You Think It Wrong

if someone else were to say "choose birth"?

Would you feel that saying anything -- one way or the other -- would be trying to "coerce" or "force" the woman to choose a particular option?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

134. Actually, there has been some discussion (and I can't remember

where I read about it) about African-Americans who would like to adopt children but who are put off by income requirements, processing costs, and fears that white social workers will judge them harshly.

[dsc]

30. and things never change

Gee, it must be nice to be someone who has never misjudged her ability to handle a task and never had circumstances change to the point that what you once could do, you no longer can. I would love to have your crystal ball.

[SOteric]

31. I'm sorry, I don't think that's realistically true in all circumstance

I've known many silly young women who've thought having a baby would be like a wonderful version of their childhood game of playing house, that the baby would be someone who "always loved them," that somehow being a parent would be easy, fulfilling and bring the love that they want for themselves into their lives. This even in spite of things their sensible parents, teachers and friends tried to tell them. Life's little comeuppance for mum shouldn't come with a penalty for the infant child. Not every woman will chose abortion, because not every female capable of bearing children has her head screwed on straight. I think as a society, we can still afford compassion.

[seabeyond]

37. this is epidemic in our girls, yes girls today

at 14 15 16 they want to have a baby and play house. tell them that means you dont get a life anymore, self sacrifice no longer think and do for self, they dont get it, have a clue.

it is a real problem in our teenage world

to pin it on the right instead of looking at it as a societal problem as a whole will never help to find solution. something i feel we have to really address in this nation, but then in all our liberalism and how we create our girls today just the feeding of

i shrug my shoulders

[Malva Zebrina]

54. of course, but the compassion should be aimed at the woman and not

a blob of cells which does not have anything but psysiological attributes and does NOT have anything called a "soul"

If young women think having the baby is like playing house, and then hand it over to society because they tire of it, well, that is what I am saying. The heart of the matter is not the baby, but, in that case, the irresponsibility of the mothers. and we, as tax payers pay for the handing off of the unwanted baby to us. That needs to addressed at it's core. If there is little available to educate these women then they will simply believe it will be fun to have a baby. Further nothing much is mentioned about the fathers. Where are they in these cases?

But there are also many who carry the pregnancy through out of some religious guilt. There were over five hundred abandoned babies, left on doorsteps of the fire department and police stations in Texas a few years bac, and that was within a period of six months, and fifty who were simply dumped into dumptsters and died. These were newborns, not babies that some starry eyed adolescent thought was going to be their little toy and they tried it for a few months and tired of it.

There has been few in the churches that are signing up to adopt babies that are certain to be given up because the woman did NOT want them. There were a few tries at signing up Christian families to adopt unwanted babies,and the entire thing fell through, time after time. It has failed and there is little being done in any church that tries to get anyone in the congregation to volunteer to adopt unwanted babies.

Sure someone has to care for the babies--and it is a burden on the taxpayers to do so. We have always done so also, but now that we have Roe vs Wade there is little excuse for a woman carrying through a pregnancy that she does not want, except for religious type commands from the hierophants on high, who practice misogyny and have never ever had to carry through to term any pregnancy--except for those who are riddled with guilt over their own sexuality and mistake in not using widely available birth control.

What is your suggestion? Other than saddling society with abandoned babies, which we have, btw always cared for as a society although no9t always with compassion. My suggestion is that we educate young people early and fast as to the responsibilites of play parenthood.

and, abstinence is NOT the answer, and neither is a sense of guilt over the humaness and soul of a four celled blob of nothing.

[outinforce]

56. Guilt

Guilt is a powerful motivator.

If we just keep saying that it is irresponsible for women to hand thier babies over to society because they tire of it and that we, as tax payers, will be burdened with the cost of paying for the handing off of the unwanted baby to us, just think of the guilt that we will be able to induce.

Let's make women feel guilt about having children.

More $$ for abortion providers!

[slinkerwink]

57. let's make women feel guilty about having abortions because they were

raped, or cannot simply afford the cost and physical burden of carrying a fetus to term for nine months and then shucking the damn thing off to an adoption agency.

[outinforce]

62. Well, Whatever Floats Your Boat

I guess if that's what you want to do, then I guess that's what you want to do.

I would never make a woman feel guilty about having an abortion because she was raped or because she simply cannot affor dthe cost and physical burden of carrying a fetus to term.

But if that makes YOU feel good about yourself, then......

[slinkerwink]

68. I was being sarcastic---I guess you missed the sarcasm

you're saying you never would make a woman feel guilty about having an abortion.....yet you're in EVERY abortion thread arguing against abortion....

[outinforce]

72. Your Point

continues to elude me.

Are you saying that because I would like to make abortions rarer than they are now that I am therefore trying to make women who do have abortions feel guilty?

[slinkerwink]

75. making abortions more rare means supporting more contraceptives

are you willing to do that? even the emergency morning-after pill?

[outinforce]

83. Making Abortions More Rare Also Means

taking responsible and reasonable steps.

Are you willing to do that? Even parental notification?

[slinkerwink]

85. no, not even parental notification--you still haven't answered my question

[outinforce]

95. OK.

Here's your answer:

I would support an effort to expand the avaliablity of contraception -- that is, anything that prevents conception from occuring.

So you do not favor reasonjable steps, other than expanding the availability of contraceptives, as a way of reducing the number of abortions?

Do I understand you correctly, then, to be saying that once a woman becomes pregnant (perhaps through the failure of one of the contraceptives) that you would not be in favor of any reasonable and legal step that could reduce the number of abortions?

[slinkerwink]

101. here's a little connect the dots for you

A woman is on the birth control pill and her boyfriend uses a condom every time they have sex. The reason for this added contraceptive use is to prevent getting pregnant. However, there is the chance of pregnancy, and when a woman that uses both the pill and a condom gets pregnant, she gets an abortion rightly because being pregnant is not in her plan.

I would not reduce any access to abortion, and in my view, more contraceptive use actually reduces the number of abortions, but not the access to abortions.

More contraceptives=less abortions
More access to contraceptives=less abortions
Still left with same access to abortions

What I am saying is that I want the access to abortion be left alone.

[outinforce]

105. Access To Abortion

I don't believe I have said that I would support anything that restricted access to abortion.

What I have suggested is that there might be some reasonable steps, in addition to expanding access to contraceptives, that might serve to reduce the number of abortions.

[Djinn]

92. why do you want them to be rarer

an answer to that would go a long way. Unless you think they're something wrong with abortions why would you want to make them rarer (not saying I agree or disagree on this am just curious as to why you think there should be less of them)

I will say I'm absolutely against "parental notification" it does far more harm than good and stops teenagers worried about their parent's views going to get medical help (regardless of whether they decide to abort or carry to term) kids who CAN speak to their parents don't need notification laws, kids who CAN'T are not helped by them

[JayS]

98. "make them rarer"

Since abortion is a medical procedure I wish they were more rare. With all the advances in birth control, maybe in the future they will be.

[outinforce]

106. Why Rarer?

Why do I want abortions to be rarer?

First of all, I think most Americans would want abortions to be rarer. Look, for instance, at all the people who sometimes post on DU and who really object when someone mistakes "pro-choice" for "pro-abortion". Most people, I think, shy away from being labeled "pro-abortion". They don't mind being labeled "pro-choice", but there is something about being "pro-abortionm" that just doesn't sit will with a lot of people -- and not just me.

There is also something about abortion that is reflected in many of the posts here on DU. And that is that the decision to have an abortion can be a deeply emotional one. People seem to think about having an abortion differently from say, a tonsillectomy or an appendectomy. As with any medical procedure that involves invasive surgery, people fret about tonsillectomies, appendectomies, and abortions. But I think I am correct when I say that, judging at least from the many posts I have seen here on DU concerning abortion, many of the people who have had abortions would not characterize them as being the same as having a set of tonsils removed. Why that is, I'm not exactly sure, but I do think it exists.

Finally, abortion is a medical procedure. Someone said that being "anti-abortion" is like being "anti-amputation". My response is that it depends on how you define your terms. I think that amputation should be available to anyone who wants it. But I also think that it should be rare. If someone, as a simple matter opf choice, wished to have his or her arm or leg amputated, I think I would not try to restrict them from having it done in a safe and legal manner. But I would, I think, try to convince them of other alternatives.

[JayS]

110. I think I have been lost on y'all's argument since post one... n/t

n/t

[Forkboy]

119. I agree

you have been lost.

[JayS]

120. Here is the baby that was saved.

June 10, 2004, 6:22AM
Search for baby's mother runs into legal quandary
By MELANIE MARKLEY
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/2619411

Children's Protective Services officials say they want to find the mother of an abandoned newborn to make sure the parents want to give up custody so a waiting family can adopt the girl.

But the author of a law designed to shield parents from prosecution if they leave their unwanted baby at a hospital or fire station is worried. She fears CPS will have a chilling effect on people using the law if the agency tries to track down the identity of a mother who doesn't want to be found.

"My concern is that these mothers are in a desperate situation for whatever reason, and they've hidden their pregnancy and had the baby on their own," said state Rep. Geanie Morrison, R-Victoria. "I think probably the last thing they want is for someone to try to track them down to find out who they are because they wouldn't be using this law if they were going to use the normal form of relinquishment or adoption."

Wednesday, CPS officials invited the media to publicize the photograph of a recently abandoned baby in hopes the family will come forward and provide information. The girl was left over the weekend at Memorial Hermann Southeast Hospital.

*SNIP*

[Djinn]

117. wouldn't have anything

to do with your views as expressed by these choice quotes:

"Haven't I even said that doctors who perform abortions -- and especially doctors who are able to see the feet and torso of a small baby (or fetus) wiggling with life and then jab a forcepts into the baby's skull to kill it"

yep - no sarcasm there!

"I did ask, though, why people are not proud of having abortions."

how the hell would you know if they were or weren't - have you spoken to every woman worldwide that's ever had one?

i'm not to sure, but I think a number of the pre-born children who die as a matter of choice each day are females."

yep lots of pro-choice folk use terms like "pre-born children"

And I do think that there are a number of pre-born children who never get to be born because someone exercises a choice to kill pre-borns with disablities."

how many pro-choice folk refer to abortions as "pre-born children" being killed

This was all from one thread let alone what you've mentioned in others.

Yep you sure sound pro-choice outinforce, give it up - NOBODY's buying

[outinforce]

126. My. My. My.

The thrust of your post, it seems, is that in order to be pro-choice, one must, I guess, not recoil in a little bit of horror at the thought of having a forcepts jabbed into the skull of a fetus who has been partially delivered.

Or perhaps you are trying to make the point that in order to be pro-chioce, one must reject the notion that a human fetus is at all human.

For you, it seems that argument is about what words one wishes to employ.

Use whatever terms you feel most comfortable with.

Just please do not attempt to label ME because I choose (there's that word!) to use certain words.

[sangh0]

131. Another sign that outinforce is ANTI-CHOICE

is that he thinks ALL abortions involve a partial delivery.

For you, it seems that argument is about what words one wishes to employ.

Use whatever terms you feel most comfortable with.

Just please do not attempt to label ME because I choose (there's that word!) to use certain words.

Is that your way of saying we should ignore your descriptions of abortions as "wonderful"?

[outinforce]

135. Another Sign that "sangh0" or "sangha" (take your pick)

is on a personal vendetta against me.

I have never -- never said that I think ALL abortions involve a partial delivery.


sangh0/sangha/s pathetic efforts to say that I did reflect either her own inability to read carefully or her ridiculous efforts to make me appear to be something that I am not -- and only because she and I do not agree.

sangh0/sangha (or is it sangha/sangh0 that you prefer to be called?) also appears to have a real problem recognizing sarcasm.

[sangh0]

138. Proof the he thinks ALL abortions involve a partial delivery

The thrust of your post, it seems, is that in order to be pro-choice, one must, I guess, not recoil in a little bit of horror at the thought of having a forcepts jabbed into the skull of a fetus who has been partially delivered.

Thid clearly implies that ALL abortions involve a partial delivery

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

144. The context

is your emotional campaign to misportray abortion and abortion related issues, as well as your anti-choice proposals like taxing abortions.

[outinforce]

148. Context

THe ability to detect context requires the ability to read critically.

Some people lack that skill.

Those that do frequently miss the context of a given post.

And then those same folks attempt to smear other people by taking items out of context.

Often, those samew folks take things out of context as part of a malicious campaign.

But you would never do that, now would you, sangh0/sangha???

[Djinn]

157. He "supports" the right to choose

but is also happy with laying on an erroneous guilt trip by using pathetic terms such as "pre born children" :eyes:

picking him up on any aspect of his argument just leads to pointless posts going back and forward , in which he refuses to state outright "I think abortion is the murder of a child" which is his basic position. Yawn.

[Malva Zebrina]

65. as with anything else, there is responsibility involved

and there are times when guilt is the appropriate consideration.

Having a baby that one knows one does not want, and carrying it through to term because of some religious consideration, and then handing it off to society is irresponsible. There should be some amount of guilt involved there because the action involves others and it involves a burden put upon others because of one's selfishness. There should not be praise as far as I am concerned for someone passing off their newborn baby to society because they chose to have it to save themselves from going to hell or some other selfish consideration. In this case, guilt should be the punsihement and perhaps the motivation to not get into that situation again.

The answer really lies in the education of young women re pregnancy and the prevention of. Also,a building of the self esteem of women who would be proud of their inalienable right to have control over their own bodies and not be rag rugs to be stepped upon by white robed, pink silk slippered hierophants who think they have the final say as to what a woman does with her own body and would do anything to make her comply by the heaping of guilt upon her.

[outinforce]

69. It's About CHOICE!!!!

"There should not be praise as far as I am concerned for someone passing off their newborn baby to society because they chose to have it to save themselves from going to hell or some other selfish consideration."

Do you hear what you are saying?

You want to lay guilt upon someone for her choice -- HER CHOICE!.

Not your choice. Not the choice you would have made.

But her choice.

And you have the gall to say that HER choice might have been for "selfish reasons".

Don't you know that the decision whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most difficult decisions a woman will ever have to make?

And don't you know that each woman has her own decision to make for herself?

People who wish to make women feel guilty for their choice -- whatever that choice is -- concerning abortion are, I thin, very much anti-choice. They would prefer that the woman not have any choice - or they would prefer to make a woman feel guilty is she does not make the choice they think she should make.

You talk of educating women and of white robed hierophants who think they have the final say as to what a woman does with her own body and would do anything to make her comply by the heaping of guilt upon her.

But you are no better than the white-robed folks you talk about.

THey want to lay guilt upon women for having abortions.

You want to lay guilt upon women for not having abortions.

You are just as much anti-choice as the religions people you keep railing against.

[sangh0]

123. Another sign that outinforce is ANTI_CHOICE

is that he doesn't seem to understand choice. He seems to think that if one supports the right of women to make choices (right or wrong), then they must also give up their right to criticize the choices that some make.

[outinforce]

137. Oh, I Get It Now!

How stupid of me!

When someone criticizes a woman for not having an abortion, that person is merely being a person who is exercising the right to criticize the choices that some make.

But when someone else criticizes a woman for having an abortion, that person is a misogynist, anti-choice zealot pig.

Why didn't I see that?

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

151. Why didn't you see that?

Because it didn't happen. You just made that up

[outinforce]

153. You Say Po-Tay-To

And I say po-tah-to.

As a general rule, I do not choose to discuss topics such as abortion wuith people unless they demonstrate a willingness to engage in adult conversation.

It is my obserrvation that you are far more interested in having a flame war.

Every single time you and I have entered into a discussion, a flame war has resulted.

It takes two to have a flame war.

And I am no longer willing to play with you.

Let me know when you wish to discuss things seriously.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JayS]

61. five hundred abandoned babies?

The three page WSJ article I included earlier has the most accurate numbers I have seen to date and addresses the education issues quite well. I'm afraid this is going to be one of those "easier said than done" type situations.

[Susang]

74. I'm just glad this flame war isn't about Ronald Reagan!

Though for once, I'm not going to join in the reproductive rights fray. My forehead tends to get bloody after repeatedly beating it against a brick wall. Have fun storming the castle folks!

[JayS]

76. Think it would help if I pointed out that this law originated with...

...George W. Bush? :)

[seabeyond]

78. i dont care

as long as we are living in a society where the parent isnt taking care of their kids, teaching them at an early age responsibility and educating children so they dont feel so hopeless but to get preg in their teens so they can feel loved, then we need this. whether bush implemented it or not.

this is the crisis our youth is in. this is why so many adults are outraged the direction our society is on. i think many have jumped on the wrong boat, it isnt a clinging to the repressive religions to heal this ailment..........which is just feeding it more in my view.

but right now, the teens are in trouble in the perception of the world

[JayS]

79. Me neither...

...I'm just glad that someone passed something like this. Having the Bush name attached to it did elicit some strong reactions though, just like having the NRA name attached to a bill closing the "gun show loophole" helped in no way whatsoever and sunk it. The article below goes into the Baby Moses Law in more detail and is interesting.

The funny thing is, Bush did a few good things while he was here. I don't know what happened once he got to Washington though.

***




http://library.adoption.com/Laws-Legal-Issues/The-Wall-Street-Journals-Al-Hunt-Strikes-Out-on-Safe-Haven-Laws/article/5231/1.html

After 38 years with The Wall Street Journal and despite serving as Executive Washington editor for that paper, not to mention his prominence as a regular on CNN's "The Capital Gang," it is to be expected that Al Hunt will strike out once in a while strictly on the basis of not reporting the facts. (There's no point in trying to assess Hunt's score on ideology, given the fact that he's the resident "liberal" of a paper with a consistently "conservative" philosophy.)

Sadly, Hunt goofed in an area - children's issues and adoption - where he's got a deep and abiding personal interest, he's an adoptive parent and is supportive of adoption. Hunt has often hit homers. Most notably, Hunt was on former President Clinton's back about having a Department of Health and Human Services that tolerated race-based placement policies for children receiving federal funds. And Hunt was supportive of foster care reforms undertaken by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Hunt's folly came in an Aug. 21, 2003, "Politics & People" column in The Wall Street Journal entitled "No Safe Haven." "Safe Haven" refers to those laws, sometimes also called "Baby Moses" laws which allow women, or someone they give their babies to, to have an option other than unsafely abandoning their newborns - or killing them. The essence of the laws is that women can anonymously put their children in the arms of someone at a Safe Haven, or leave their babies at a Safe Haven site - usually a hospital or fire station - without fear of being prosecuted for child abandonment. The first such bill, in Texas, was signed into law on June 3, 1999 by then-Governor George W. Bush. Since then, 44 other states have passed various versions of the Texas law.

Maybe Hunt's problem has something to do with the fact that President Bush and Texas Republican Geanie Morrison, a GOP State Representative from Victoria, were godparents of the movement to pass these laws. Whatever the reasons, Hunt decided to write a column Aug. 21 about a "pocket veto" of a law nearly unanimously passed by the Hawaii legislature months ago. What prompted Hunt to drag this dead bill out and prop it up is unknown. There's certainly little debate at present in any of the remaining state legislatures about such bills.

*SNIP*

Hay's counterpart at the state level in Austin, Geoff Wool, Director of Public Information for TDPRS, says his Department does not attempt to collect data on or report on Baby Moses relinquishments. What is available are data for all babies that fall within the age range of the Baby Moses law, including babies presumably like those saved in Houston in 2002, and who are found alive. And those numbers do not show the law to be a "failure" unless declining abandonments is equated with "failure." Abandonments, even after Rep. Morrison expanded the law in 2001 to babies 31-60 days of age, went down every year. In 2000, the first full year after the law passed, there were 54 live babies abandoned in Texas. In 2001, with an expanded pool of babies, it was 43 babies. In 2002, it was 38 babies. A near one-third drop in abandonments from 2000 to 2002 hardly seems like a failure.

*SNIP*

[outinforce]

84. Yours, Too?

Here I thought that I was the only one who got a bloody forehead after repeatedly beating against not one, but several, brick walls.

Glad to know there are other people.

What do you do for your bloody forehead?

[Susang]

86. I call my friendly health care clinician at Planned Parenthood

She's ever so good with medical issues and is always ready to help a gal in need!

Planned Parenthood, caring for women's health since 1916!

[outinforce]

96. What's A Gay Guy To Do?

I am so glad that Planned Parenthood is available for you to deal with the forehead condition that results from your participation in these sorts of discussions.

Regretablly, though, it would appear that PPFA would not welcome someone like me -- a gay guy whose forehead had become bloodied as a result of trying to artriculate a pro-choice, anti-abortion position. I'm not sure whether PPFA would niot welcome me with open arms because I am not a woman, or because I do not articulate what for them is no doubt orthodoxy on the issue of abortion.

I guess I'll just have to keep purchasing my own Betadine ointment and gauze.

[put out]

97. Planned Parenthood offers many services to men.

Contraception or referrals to physicians who will provide male contraception. Condoms. Screening and treatment for STDs. General health screening. Referral to social agencies for concerns which are not able to be addressed within the scope of Planned Parenthood resources. Screening and examinations for reproductive cancers and disorders specific to males. Referrals to support groups. Support for gay youth. Education regarding sexual and reproductive matters, offered to the community.

I don't think I covered all they do in service to men. Planned Parenthood advocates for health of all in the community. This includes men, you see.

[Susang]

107. Obviously, you've never stepped foot in a Planned Parenthood

But why buy Betadine ointment and gauze? That crown of thorns you wear so proudly will just keep reopening the wound anyway.

[outinforce]

108. "Crown Of Thorns"???

What in the world are you talking about?

I have no clue as to what you mean when you say that I "wear so proudly" a crown of thorns -- or why you would even suggest a thing.

What is your point in saying this?

[buddhamama]

77. good. this is what the law was designed for and it's working

hopefully the babies will be placed in a loving home.

[Pithlet]

87. I am 100% behind these laws.

The baby, at that point, is the most important issue. If having these laws in place saves those babies lives, and they end up at a hospital instead of dead, then, to me, it is a good law.

[Solly Mack]

88. Various societies have allowed this throughout history

and..yeah...yeah...so the woman could have gotten an abortion or opted for adoption ..yeah yeah... but you know what? life just isn't that neat and tidy ...and since it's not....we need such laws to fill the need.

[Liberal Veteran]

116. Good. That's what safe harbor laws are for.

Better the child be left with an authority than in the street or a trashcan.

[supernova]

147. That means these abadonment laws are working

and the moms who can't handle being moms are aware of them. This is good.

Their babies can be adopted by people capable of loving them and caring for them.

This thread has 140+ replies. I fail the see the controversy.

And yes, I'd rather see a newborn left at the hospital or firehouse than abandoned in a dumpster or by the side of the road.

[JayS]

150. Here is a picture of the baby. :)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/2619411

[supernova]

155. Awww. She's adorable!

:hug: I hope she gets a home soon.

[JayS]

156. I'm sure she will find a home soon. Her picture is running in...

...a lot of different papers and her story is getting a lot of coverage. This will show that a tremendous effort to find her family has been made and the "good faith effort" part of the law will apply.