Now
Fair
20°
High
32°
Low
16°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Politics
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Filibuster threatens safe haven bill

Comments 6 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By NANCY HICKS / Lincoln Journal Star

Friday, Mar 09, 2007 - 07:04:11 pm CST

Four years ago, Sen. Mike Flood watched in horror as Norfolk firefighters pulled the body of an infant out of a river.

The baby was dead, abandoned by an unknown mother.

If Flood, who was working as a radio reporter, had not seen the dead baby strapped to a backboard, he might have a different view of the safe haven law now being debated by the Legislature, he said.

Story Photo

But Flood wants options for frightened moms — safe places where they can drop off an unwanted infant.

Flood supports the bill that will allow parents to leave an infant up to 30 days old at a hospital or fire station and not face criminal abandonment charges.

But the measure, LB157, the priority bill of Sen. Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center, faces a filibuster by Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers, who says it is poorly written and ill conceived.

The bill is a “hodgepodge that may be well-intentioned but has very foolish provisions,” Chambers said as he promised a filibuster that could tie up the bill’s first-round debate for eight hours and require 33 votes to end debate.

Nebraska is one of three states without a safe haven law, which gives parents who have tried to keep a pregnancy and birth a secret an option other than a Dumpster or creek bed, Stuthman said.

The mothers want to remain anonymous. They are often teen parents, illegal immigrants or victims of domestic violence, said Omaha Sen. Rich Pahls, who also sponsored a safe haven bill.

And the program has been successful in states with public information efforts to educate people about the existence of safe havens.

In Florida, 57 babies were left in safe havens over a five-year period. During the same time, 33 babies were left in unsafe places and 21 were found dead, he said.

Senators discussed the measure for more than an hour Friday and are expected to continue debate  Monday.

Reach Nancy Hicks at 473-7250 or nhicks@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
WCG wrote on March 11, 2007 8:15 am:
" This is a very, very poorly-written article. If you skip past the melodrama, you realize there's no news here. WHY does Sen. Chambers consider the bill "poorly written and ill conceived"? You'd think a safe haven bill would be a slam-dunk, but that's clearly not the case. There's apparently more than one side to this debate,... so why don't we learn about both of them? Sorry, but this is about as useless as a news article gets. Whether you agree with him or not, why can't we hear the reasons for Sen. Chamber's objections to this bill? "

 WCG is right wrote on March 11, 2007 10:20 am:
" WCG is exactly right. This story does not explain the situation but rather focuses on putting images of dead babies in peoples' heads. I saw the floor debate on NETV. Chambers correctly pointed out how poorly the bill was drafted. In response to Chambers' questioning, not even the bill's sponsors could explain the meaning of certain key language and provisions in the bill. Even the bills' sponsors and committee chair agreed it needed to be re-drafted; but then they resisted Chambers' motion to bracket the bill for a few weeks (for the purpose of giving them time to re-draft it). It really was a sad spectacle demonstrating the incompetence of many of those senators. "

 airedale wrote on March 11, 2007 2:50 pm:
" I am sure that drafting a bill is very difficult. Sen. Flood gets big points from me for attempting to address this issue. "

 Unicam Watcher wrote on March 11, 2007 3:14 pm:
" In all fairness to the senators, Ernie does NOT play fair. His ruse to postpone the bill may be to get rid of it entirely and not allow it to see the light of day again, which he did last year when Sen. Stuhr had it and made all the changes that Ernie recommended last year to lake it palatable for him. A lot of good THAT did this year. There are just certain issues that Ernie hates and this is one of them. He could pick apart every bill on the Floor just like he is doing on this one, so there is really nothing more there to have reported other than his usual rhetoric. As usual, because this is something Ernie hates, there are already 47 other states having legislation to permit this, and we are the last ones to do it. He often acts under the ruse of "making things better because they are so bad," in the hopes that it will not come back up on the agenda. He will use this bill as a tool against the Senators for other bills they want to get on the agenda, with more filibuster threats. And the closer it gets to the end of Session, the more he will enlist this tactic. Yes, Ernie is a very talented man, but he by no means EVER plays by what would be considered fair and honorable rules. He lies in wait to snare his prey and waste more of the People's time to defeat issues he is in the minority against. I believe Nancy Hicks reported all there is to report on this one. She has been in that Chamber for many years and listened to literally years of Ernie's debate. Had there been anything noteworthy in there other than the same old picking apart and putting senators on the spot in his usual put-down fashion to kill time, she would have reported it to us. "

 truth seeker wrote on March 11, 2007 3:38 pm:
" there was also a female senator from omaha who spoke on the floor and was very critical of the bill, but there's no mention of that in the article "

 too bad wrote on March 12, 2007 10:33 am:
" it is too bad more senators don't fillabuster everything they dissagrreed with. It would be a much better use of their time (and our stolen money) for them to just argue back and forth instead of passing more laws we don't need. I think we should at least triple the size of the legislature and require that nothing can pass without a 95% approval vote. "

Ads by Yahoo!