Now
Fair
22°
High
28°
Low
11°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Editorial
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Nebraska should offer safe havens

Comments 9 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Wednesday, Jul 25, 2007 - 12:00:09 am CDT

So-called “safe haven” laws that give mothers the option of dropping off unwanted infants in safe places without fear of criminal penalty are still controversial.

But supporters clearly are presenting a more persuasive case. Earlier this month, the number of states without safe haven laws dropped from three to two when legislators in Hawaii overrode the governor’s veto. That leaves only Nebraska and Alaska without safe haven laws.

On balance, safe haven laws offer some social good, and there’s little evidence that the laws do harm.

The recent case involving the 21-year-old mother who left her newborn baby at Saint Elizabeth Regional Health Center offers advocates the sort of case that dramatizes the benefits of the legislation.

If Nebraska had a safe haven law, Megan Skrdlant of Lincoln would not have been in court Tuesday on a misdemeanor charge of neglect-abandonment.

The pressure is mounting. Even Oprah Winfrey earlier this summer singled out the holdout states and urged them to enact safe haven laws.

Supporters contend that without such laws, mothers are more likely to leave their babies in garbage bins, parking lots, toilets and other unsafe places. Earlier this year, a newborn was found near an Omaha apartment building’s dumpster.

Opponents, including Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, contend that the laws actually encourage abandonments because they make it easier to avoid consequences.

Adam Pertman of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute argues that the laws are not effective because some mothers are still abandoning their newborns in unsafe places.

The National Safe Haven Alliance reported last year, however, that at least 806 infants had been legally relinquished since the first law was passed in 1999.

The debate is not one that will be decided by dispassionate analysis. Researchers can’t probe the psyches of mothers who leave babies under the law; their identities are unknown. Under the circumstances, anecdotal evidence is powerful.

If the Nebraska Legislature decides to join the 48 states with safe haven laws, it should heed one of the lessons learned by earlier adopters: Make sure that plans and funds are in place to publicize the law. Senators also should require a mechanism to make sure an abandoned baby is not listed nationally as missing or abducted.

A “safe haven” law offers only a last-resort solution. But it would be better for troubled young mothers to have that option in Nebraska than not.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Editorial > 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  
whatever wrote on July 25, 2007 3:30 am:
" I think the JS is using the recent abandonment case in Lincoln to further the agenda of passing a safe haven law. By publishing the girls name and picture the JS is implicitly asserting that had there been a safe haven law no publicity would have surrounded the latest case, if you pass the law the JS will not report. i.e. Let's make the current "law" look so bad that anything else will be better. "

 jaded wrote on July 25, 2007 10:23 am:
" What is best for the child??? Safe Haven and the chance to life. Sense abortion and the like is forbiden... why do you want to let these little ones you have saved, suffer in un-safe places???? Overcome the hiprocacy and give safety to them now that they have been born! "

 Gotta love the 'consequences' argument... wrote on July 25, 2007 2:28 pm:
" You shouldn't have gotten pregnant, you should have made arrangements for this baby before today. Your punishment for making bad decisions is to have to watch your child grow up on welfare, without proper health care, without proper supervision, and without enough to eat. Who is really facing the 'consequences' here? Don't use the life and care of a child to punish an adult. Get these children adopted into new families right away, and hope that the childbirth experience and the awareness of their unknown child are enough to make a difference in the woman's life. "

 Jodi wrote on July 25, 2007 3:22 pm:
" Having a child doesn't make a person a good parent or automatically make that person love the child. In an ideal world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies, but we do not live in an ideal world, and we need to address "real world" issues. If a woman is pregnant and gives birth, and then discovers that she just cannot deal with being a mother, then there should be something she can do. Leaving a child at a safe haven isn't necessarily an easy decision. Holding a woman accountable for that child's welfare is one thing; punishing the child because it was born to a mother who didn't want it and who doesn't care about supporting it properly is completely different. A child is truly a gift--every child deserves to be loved by its parents, whether they are biological or adoptive--and if creating a safe haven law allows for a better life for that child, then I think that's the more important issue than forcing a woman to be a mother to a child she doesn't want just because she should "have to face the consequences of her actions." (I also feel compelled to point out that a woman can become pregnant through no choice of her own, in which case she is stuck with the consequences of someone else's actions on top of being victimized.) Yes, I think there are better alternatives to resorting to a safe haven, such as a planned adoption. Do I think there is a place for safe havens? Absolutely. "

 Bob wrote on July 25, 2007 3:35 pm:
" Stop watching Oprah. "

 Call me an idiot wrote on July 25, 2007 4:56 pm:
" I thought all states have Safe Haven laws. I probably would have left my baby on the step of a hospital too, thinking that this is a law that all states abide by. Either way people would be angry. Let's say she arranged to have an abortion...people would be mad. Instead she decided to have the baby and secretly live the baby in a place which is SAFE and would find a GOOD Home...and people are still mad. Poor girl, she made the RIGHT Decision. "

 Bryan wrote on July 26, 2007 12:14 pm:
" I would say a safe haven is better than some of the alternatives that some may take that may endanger or possibly bring death to infants. There are great families out there that would eventually be able to adopt these children and it is giving the children a chance instead of an ending. "

 Donna wrote on July 26, 2007 3:50 pm:
" Seriously, if a woman WANTS to abandon her child, then she probably isn't a fit mother anyway. Better that child get a loving home as an infant than suffer and eventually end up in foster care. "

 Gerard Harbison wrote on July 27, 2007 7:41 am:
" The sexism of this argument is hilarious. Men who try to dump their children are called 'deadbeat dads'. Why aren't these women 'deadbeat moms?' Sauce for the gooose... "

Ads by Yahoo!