Baby Love Child banner

Still more Border Babies routinely relabeled “safe haven saves” in OH, NJ, MI, and KY

The Columbus Dispatch (Columbus, Ohio) has done a very important article,

about the way boarder babies, those born at hospitals and left there after birth are being systematically folded into babydump, or so called “safe haven” statistics in Ohio.

While this is nothing new, it’s good to see another article pointing out the failures of the “safe haven” legislative schemes (similar to the article about New Jersey doing the same that I blogged earlier, New Jersey- Boarder Babies being folded into “Safe Haven” statistics.)

While “safe haven” legislation pimps continue invoking images of desperate pregnant teens secretly giving birth and claim the legislation is vital, lest these women murder their newborn offspring, and insist that only legislation will keep these babies “SAFE” (from their mothers) clearly border babies, born in hospitals and left when the women check out are not exactly fodder for choking, drowning, suffocating headlines.

Conflating these two scenarios goes beyond disingenuous.

The dump pimps with their pet legislation get to relabel babies born safely in hospital “saves,” the states get to move babies out of their border babies columns and into the “safe havened” column in their statistics, making them look good (and potentially changing their financials as well) but at what cost?

That women who deliver in hospitals and then leave the child at the hospital are now viewed as “safe haven” mothers, or there but for this (et-hem) “Lifesaving” legislation (cough, cough) she may have turned to infanticide?

That the infant themselves will be permanently stripped of biological and family ties, their individual cultural and heritage, and most importantly, their authentic identity all in the name of sliding them into a new class of eventual adoptee or foster child, the anonymized by the state “havened” dumpees?

What does this say about how we as a culture view women and the lifelong genuine needs of the children themselves, in whose name this damnedable legislation was passed in the first place?

The Ohio stats begin to tell the ugly story:

Lucas County Children Services in Toledo has handled six cases since Ohio’s Safe Havens law took effect in 2002, Executive Director Dean Sparks said. All were infants born in hospitals and left there by mothers…

and

Franklin County documented three Safe Havens babies this year, two of which took place in the hospital where the babies were delivered.

Cuyahoga County has had two this year, both in the hospitals where the babies were born.

Neither of those counties, the state’s most populous, could provide details on how and where all of their Safe Havens cases have occurred since 2002.

Due to the lack of reporting requirements (that opponents of the dump laws like myself wanted at the time this terrible legislation was initially passed) the counties , who apparently are unable to account for their dump cases, are the primary form of ’statistical reporting’. The state only collects the data these counties inadequately report.

The bottom line is, no one CAN know how many of these kids have been created. Even the state itself has no idea.

The state doesn’t know, either. The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services cannot provide a statewide breakdown on how Safe Havens cases occur, because it doesn’t keep track, said Jennifer Justice, chief of the Bureau of Family Services.

The raw numbers it reports have varied from 52 to more than 70 since the law went into effect. Justice said the discrepancy probably is due to a new child-welfare computer system.

Michigan and Kentucky’s “stats” tell the same story of border babies routinely reclassified as “safe havens:”

In Michigan, a large majority of the 76 babies given up under the state’s “Safe Delivery” law have been born in hospitals and left there, said Jean Hoffman, a consultant assigned to the program.

In Kentucky, 22 of 24 babies given up since 2002 under that state’s safe-haven law were surrendered in the hospitals where they were born.

The “safe haven” scam is that ultimately these are border babies being given a new more palatable narrative and marketing scheme.

There is already a technical classification for these babies born in hospital, “border babies.” Only lack of awareness of said terminology allows those advocating such schemes to get away with this rebranding.

None-the-less, true believers continue to intone their broken mantra “if it saves just one”, or we need this legislation, otherwise women will kill!

Those of us critical of the emerging babydump industry can’t help but take one look at drivel such as this from an adoption lawyer,

Columbus lawyer Thomas Taneff, who handles many adoptions, said some women incapable of parenting need the option that safe-haven laws afford.

and can’t help but point out that the dump laws provide a new source of (largely information-free, or “as-is”) kids, infusing them into a landscape wherein wanna-be-adopters are a dime a dozen, whereas actual kids to adopt, particularly healthy, white infants, are not surprisingly, utterly scarce. Naturally adoption lawyers, those who earn income from adoptions, are going to be supportive of any law that frees up more “product” to the adoption marketplace.

In the end, the dispatch article points out precisely what critics of the laws have said all along,

On one point, the sides agree: The nation needs reliable data on safe-haven laws, which now are in effect in all 50 states.

Sadly (though not surprisingly,) no. Those who have advocated enacting these laws DO NOT support accurate data collection, they have consistently, actively worked to have any amendment requiring data collection stripped from the final versions of the bills.

They continue to oppose data collection requirements even now after the bills have passed, insisting that reliable data is unnecessary, after all, it allows their claims of ‘thousands of babies saved’ to go unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiatable.

Mind you, when their ’saved” babies are nothing more than born in a hospital, and remaining in a hospital until children’s services come to pick the kid up and enter them into the foster system the whole scheme sounds far less dramatic than the “saved (from ‘potentially murderous mothers’) babies!”

But then that’s the babydump laws for you, marketing and rebranding at it’s best, (well that and a paycheck for the dump pimps.)

Leave a Reply